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

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.

New Study Adds to the Debate Surrounding Ideological Divides and the United States Supreme Court

Post author:Stephen Boyett
Post published:December 21, 2009
Post category:Judges & Judicial Process U.S. Supreme Court

The New York Times published an article detailing the results of a new study regarding the career paths of former United States Supreme Court clerks. The study finds that “former clerks have started to take jobs that reflect the ideologies of the justices for whom they worked.” The data collected show a shift in the career paths of clerks hired from 1990 and on:

Until about 1990, the study shows, there was no particular correlation between a justice’s ideological leanings and what his or her clerks did with their lives.

Clerks from conservative chambers are now less likely to teach. If they do, they are more likely to join the faculties of conservative and religious law schools. Republican administrations are now much more likely to hire clerks from conservative chambers, and Democratic administrations from liberal ones. Even law firm hiring splits along ideological lines.

It is no secret that the justices have shown a greater propensity to hire clerks that share their ideological beliefs (as the article and previous studies explain). Yet this newest study, which focuses on life post-clerkship, has alarmed those already worried about the strong ideological splits on the Court. Says law professor William Nelson of NYU, “It’s cause for concern mainly because it’s a further piece of evidence of the polarization of the court.”