Montana supreme court says Citizens United doesn't count there

[gloraelin]

Montana’s Supreme Court has issued a stunning rebuke to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 that infamously decreed corporations had constitutional rights to directly spend money on ‘independent expenditures’ in campaigns.

The Montana Court vigorously upheld the state’s right to regulate how corporations can raise and spend

Comments

[jocelyncs]

Uh, as much as I loathe the Citizens United decision, it doesn't work like this. The Montana SC is way out of line if they are refusing to apply it (I can hope this is just bad journalism.)

[soundczech]

he didn't refuse to apply it, he just put his dissent on record before stating that he has to enforce the (US) supreme court's decision anyway

[jocelyncs]

It was the court majority that seems to be refusing to apply it, and that's disturbing. US Supreme Court decisions become the law of the land - state courts have no right to "opt out" or overrule them.

[soundczech]

ahh, whoops. i somehow glossed over the first part.

[ladypeyton]

Here's hoping other states jump on the bandwagon.

On the other hand, it's a dangerous move because who's to say that some states will just move to declare that Roe V Wade doesn't apply to their state. We're halfway there already.

[beoweasel]

Yeah, this.

As much as I want to cheer for Montana's SC, I don't know if this is a good idea.

[archanglrobriel]

Totally this. We need Citizens United to be overturned, but we do NOT need individual states deciding that supreme court rulings they don't agree with don't apply in those states. Gay marriage decisions that will not be popular with a whole host of states are definitely in the pipeline and I'd rather not see this sort of precident set.

[skellington1]

...yeah. As much as I love this particular descision, that kind of precident is really worrying.

[milleniumrex]

Yeah, no.

Nullification is an insane 19th century idea that led to the civil war. Much as I appreciate the intent and can see where it would be tempting, it's a spectacularly bad idea to go down this path.

[beoweasel]

Eh, Nullification didn't lead to the Civil War, though Nullification has lead to serious tensions between the States on a number of cases. Though in every instance it's happened, somebody relents, or a compromise occurred.

[sesmo]

This wasn't nullification. I hate journalists who write about the law without understanding it.

[pepsquad]

i <3 Montana and states rights.

[sesmo]

Can we just call out a formal rule that non-lawyer journalists who don't understand the law don't get to write about major legal decisions?

The Montana Supreme Court in no way invoked nullification, or refused to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling. They simply held that as written the Montana law was valid under the analysis used by the US Supreme Court in Citizens United, because the situation on the ground in Montana (low population, low overall income, a few very powerful corporations only) the equation of balancing came out on the side of allowing restrictions on corporations in order to preserve rights.

Also, the Supreme Court overturned a federal law. It is not the same law as the one in question in Montana. It read quite differently, it had a different purpose, and it was invalidated based on a flawed analysis of the reality of disclosure.

[mirhanda]

Thanks for making this plain. I appreciate your taking the time to do so for all of us non-lawyers.

[thenakedcat]

THANK YOU. I picked up from the article that this applied to a state-level anticorruption law but it really wasn't NEARLY as clear it should have been. And I agree with Glor that the level of disgust shown for Citizens United in the dissent is pretty damn telling.