Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Supreme Court of the United States · 2010 · Constitutional Law

558 U.S. 310 (2010)

Updated July 21, 2026

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentCampaign FinanceCorporate Political Speechcorporationsindependent expenditureselectioneering communicationsBCRA

Facts

Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation that accepts a small portion of its funds from for-profit corporations, produced Hillary: The Movie, a 90-minute documentary critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primary season. It wanted to make the film available free through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections and to promote it with television ads referring to Clinton by name. Citizens United feared the film and ads would be treated as prohibited corporate-funded electioneering communications or express advocacy under 2 U.S.C. § 441b, exposing it to civil and criminal penalties. It also challenged BCRA's disclaimer and disclosure requirements as applied to the film and ads.

Issue

Whether the First Amendment permits the Government to prohibit corporations from using general treasury funds for independent expenditures, including electioneering communications, based on the speaker's corporate identity. Also, whether BCRA's disclaimer and disclosure requirements may constitutionally be applied to Citizens United's film and advertisements.

Rule

The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. Laws burdening political speech are subject to strict scrutiny and must further a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored; disclosure requirements are subject to exacting scrutiny and must bear a substantial relation to a sufficiently important governmental interest.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakefront Steelworks, Inc., a for-profit corporation based in Cleveland, pays for a series of television ads from its general treasury funds urging voters in Ohio to defeat a U.S. Senate incumbent who supports new import tariffs. The ads are not coordinated with any candidate or campaign committee.

If federal law prohibits the ads solely because they are funded by a corporation's general treasury, which result is most consistent with the governing First Amendment rule?

Explanation. Political speech is subject to strict scrutiny, and the government may not ban independent expenditures for political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity. The majority rejected suppression justified by the corporate form, including equalization or antidistortion rationales. The ads are independent expenditures, not direct contributions, so banning them outright is unconstitutional.