Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
E33469
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded the political spending rights of corporations and unions by treating such expenditures as protected speech.
All labels observed (6)
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T252946 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
Target entity: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Context triple: [First Amendment to the United States Constitution, hasLandmarkCase, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]
-
A.
Shelby County v. Holder
Shelby County v. Holder is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by striking down the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal preclearance for changes to their voting laws.
-
B.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
-
C.
DeBoer v. Snyder
DeBoer v. Snyder was a federal court case challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban that became one of the key cases consolidated into the landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
-
D.
NFIB v. Sebelius
NFIB v. Sebelius is the landmark 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that largely upheld the Affordable Care Act, notably ruling that its individual mandate could be sustained under Congress’s taxing power.
-
E.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that closely held for-profit corporations can claim religious exemptions from certain federal regulations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Target entity: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Target entity description: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded the political spending rights of corporations and unions by treating such expenditures as protected speech.
-
A.
Shelby County v. Holder
Shelby County v. Holder is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by striking down the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal preclearance for changes to their voting laws.
-
B.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
-
C.
DeBoer v. Snyder
DeBoer v. Snyder was a federal court case challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban that became one of the key cases consolidated into the landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
-
D.
NFIB v. Sebelius
NFIB v. Sebelius is the landmark 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that largely upheld the Affordable Care Act, notably ruling that its individual mandate could be sustained under Congress’s taxing power.
-
E.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that closely held for-profit corporations can claim religious exemptions from certain federal regulations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
campaign finance case ⓘ landmark case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
campaign finance law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ election law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 2009-03-24 ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtDecision |
John G. Roberts Jr.
ⓘ
surface form:
John G. Roberts
|
| citation | 558 U.S. 310 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedIn | October Term 2009 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2010-01-21 ⓘ |
| defendant | Federal Election Commission ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy | John Paul Stevens ⓘ |
| docketNumber | No. 08-205 ⓘ |
| effect |
allowed corporations to spend unlimited funds on independent political communications
ⓘ
allowed labor unions to spend unlimited funds on independent political communications ⓘ led to growth of Super PACs ⓘ |
| fullName | Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission self-link ⓘ |
| holding |
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act limits on corporate independent expenditures are unconstitutional
ⓘ
Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity ⓘ Restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions violate the First Amendment ⓘ |
| joinedDissent |
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
ⓘ
Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ
surface form:
Stephen Breyer
|
| joinedMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
surface form:
Anthony Kennedy
Antonin Scalia ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
John G. Roberts
Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Samuel Alito
|
| legalIssue |
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
First Amendment free speech
campaign finance regulation ⓘ independent political expenditures ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
surface form:
Anthony Kennedy
|
| overruledPrecedent |
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
ⓘ
part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission ⓘ |
| plaintiff |
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Citizens United
|
| rearguedDate | 2009-09-09 ⓘ |
| relatedStatute |
Federal Election Campaign Act
ⓘ
surface form:
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
Federal Election Campaign Act ⓘ |
| separateOpinionBy |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
John G. Roberts
|
| shortName |
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Citizens United v. FEC
|
| topic |
corporate political spending
ⓘ
electioneering communications ⓘ union political spending ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 2010 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Subject: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Description of subject: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded the political spending rights of corporations and unions by treating such expenditures as protected speech.
Referenced by (14)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.