It is fair, I think, to say that a substantial majority of those who heard the argument in the case of Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate doubted that, irrespective of whatever they might think of Ted Cruz, it was highly likely that he and his campaign organization would prevail in challenging the federal campaign finance law limitation on the use of post-election funds to repay a candidate's personal loans as violative of the First Amendment rights of candidates who want to make expenditures on behalf of their own candidacy through personal loans. But, by a six-three division between the Court's judicial conservatives and liberals, that is precisely what has occurred. Those who criticize the Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), likely will feel much the same way about the Cruz case.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- U.S. Judicial Conference Aims to Curb "Judge Shopping": New Guidance Promoting Random Civil Case Assignments
- Insignificant Harm Not So Insignificant in Proving Title VII Transfer Violation - SCOTUS Today
- Today’s Argument Was More Consequential Than Issued Opinions - SCOTUS Today
- Supreme Court Underscores Limited Applicability of Rule 10b-5(b) Omissions Claims
- Unanimity Among Justices Rules the Day - SCOTUS Today