U.S. Supreme Court – Page 68 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

A Broadening of Diversity Jurisdiction

Post author:Joseph D. Kearney
Post published:February 23, 2010
Post category:Civil Procedure Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Civil Litigation Legal Education U.S. Supreme Court

Students of civil procedure—which should mean just about everybody interested in using the formal processes of the law to vindicate rights—will be interested in a decision today by the United States Supreme Court. The opinion concerned the provision in the statutory grant of diversity jurisdiction that deems a corporation “to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U. S. C. §1332(c)(1) (emphasis added). There has been a longstanding imprecision—a lack of unanimity—within the lower federal courts as to whether a corporation’s “principal place of business” is its “nerve center,” “locus of operations,” “center of corporate activities,” “muscle center” (none of these latter four terms being statutory), or some otherwise determined place. In Hertz Corp. v. Friend, the Court resolved the matter.

Justice Kennedy Goes to the Movies

Post author:David R. Papke
Post published:January 28, 2010
Post category:Constitutional Interpretation First Amendment Popular Culture & Law U.S. Supreme Court

Those industrious enough to reach the final paragraphs of the recent opinion of the Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) might have been surprised to find Justice Kennedy discussing Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939). A Hollywood classic directed by Frank Capra, the film is the fictional story of a handpicked bumpkin Senator played by Jimmy Stewart, who sees the light, dramatically filibusters, and in the end teaches the Congress how to behave. Justice Kennedy’s argument seems to be that if the campaign-related indictment of Hillary Clinton in the film titled Hillary: The Movie could be suppressed, the same fate could befall a beloved work such as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

The two films’ only similarity seems to be that they are indeed films. One film is fictional, but the other attacks an actual Senator and Presidential candidate. One is designed to entertain, but the other is designed to influence an election. And most importantly, one is a work produced by the culture industry designed to make a profit, but the other is a work funded from corporate profits designed to change opinions.

Are Justice Kennedy and the other members of the Supreme Court majority incredibly unsophisticated in their understanding of popular culture and politics, or is their analogy disingenuous? Extending the inquiry, might a comparable question be posed regarding the Citizens United opinion as a whole? The Supreme Court’s majority might be so oblivious as to think that corporations have the full panoply of First Amendment rights and that their financially self-serving broadsides are matters of free speech that enrich democracy. Then, again, the majority might simply hope it can trick us into believing that.

Campaign Finance Revolution

Post author:Richard M. Esenberg
Post published:January 21, 2010
Post category:First Amendment U.S. Supreme Court

Yesterday, I told my students in Election Law that longstanding assumptions about campaign finance regulation might be turned upside down today. That appears to have happened. In a special session, the United States Supreme Court just issued its decision in Citizens United v. FEC, and it has apparently overruled prior cases upholding the use of corporate treasury funds for express advocacy of the election and defeat of candidates. More later.