Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 546 U.S. 410 (2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 546 U.S. 410 (2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
142 citation events (137 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: BAINES v. BELLOWS (med, 2021-11-17)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BAINES v. BELLOWS
D. Me. · 2021 · confidence medium
However, precedential decisions do not necessarily “resolve future as-applied challenges,” Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. F.E.C., 546 U.S. 410, 412 (2006), and it is the job of district courts in election law cases to make the requisite “factual determination[s]” as to whether an election regulation has unduly burdened the plaintiffs’ right to political participation, Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 458 (2008).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. Federal Election Commission
D.D.C. · 2019 · confidence medium
Then, in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410, 412 (2006) (per curiam), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that McConnell “did not purport to resolve future as-applied challenges.” The Supreme Court considered another as-applied challenge to the electioneering communications rules in Citizens United.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. Reyes
10th Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
Election Comm’n, 546 U.S. 410, 411-41 (2006) (per curiam) (First Amendment); see also Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Voters Education Committee v. Public Disclosure Commission
Wash. · 2007 · confidence medium
Election Comm’n, 546 U.S. 410, 411-12, 126 S. Ct. 1016 , 163 L.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (3×)
SCOTUS · 2007 · confidence medium
We held on the contrary that “[i]n upholding §203 against a facial challenge, we did not purport to resolve future as-applied challenges.” Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm’n, 546 U. S. 410, 412 (2006) (per curiam) (WRTL I).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gonzales v. Carhart
SCOTUS · 2007 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm’n, 546 U. S. 410, 412 (2006) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission
D.D.C. · 2006 · confidence medium
See Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Carmouche, 449 F.3d 655 , 665 (5th Cir.2006) (" McConnell states only that a campaign finance regulation can cover issue advocacy and nevertheless be constitutional so long as the regulation is `closely drawn' to match a `sufficiently important' government interest . . . and is not vague." (internal citations omitted)). [2] WRTL suggests that the remand in this case makes clear that the Supreme Court has permitted as-applied challenges "regarding communications that necessarily fall within the prohibition periods or there would [be] no as-applied challenges a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
unknown court · confidence medium
An as-applied challenge was brought in Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm’n, 546 U. S. 410, 411-412 (2006) (per curiam), and the Court confirmed that the challenge could be maintained.
discussed Cited "see" Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs
Ariz. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410 , 411– 12 (2006) (explaining that an as-applied attack argues that a law’s application to a particular person under particular circumstances deprived that person of a constitutional right).
examined Cited "see" Wisconsin Right to Life State v. Timothy Vocke (3×)
7th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410, 412 , 126 S.Ct. 1016 , 163 L.Ed.2d 990 (2006) (per curiam). 8 .
examined Cited "see" Republican National Committee v. Federal Election Commission (3×)
D.D.C. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410, 412 , 126 S.Ct. 1016 , 163 L.Ed.2d 990 (2006).
cited Cited "see" Republican National Committee v. Federal Election Commission
D.D.C. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410, 412 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." NRSC v. FEC (2×)
6th Cir. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
See 533 U.S. at 456 n.17; see also Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410 , 411–12 (2006) (per curiam) (“In upholding [a campaign-finance regulation] against a facial challenge, we did not purport to resolve future as-applied challenges.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." NRSC v. FEC (2×)
6th Cir. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
See 533 U.S. at 456 n.17; see also Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410 , 411–12 (2006) (per curiam) (“In upholding [a campaign-finance regulation] against a facial challenge, we did not purport to resolve future as-applied challenges.”).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Youth Justice Coalition v. City of Los Angeles (3×)
C.D. Cal. · 2017 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
No. 59 at 28 (“The pleadings the City relies upon confirm that the due process claim invoked [before the superior court] was against the issuance of. the injunction, not its individual application.”) (emphasis added). “[I]t is well-established that the facial upholding of a law does not prevent future as-applied challenges.” In re Cao, 619 F.3d 410, 430 (5th Cir. 2010); see, e.g., Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410, 411-12 , 126 S.Ct. 1016 , 163 L.Ed.2d 990 (2006) (holding that the plaintiff could bring an as-applied challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act despi…
examined Cited "see, e.g." J.L. Spoons, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Public Safety (3×)
6th Cir. · 2012 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410 , 126 S.Ct. 1016 , 163 L.Ed.2d 990 (2006) (per curiam).
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Marcavage (3×)
3rd Cir. · 2010 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410, 411-12 , 126 S.Ct. 1016 , 163 L.Ed.2d 990 (2006) (per curiam).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Independence Institute v. Coffman (6×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: compare · confidence low
A facial challenger has the daunting burden of showing "no set of cireumstances exists under which the Act would be valid, i.e. that the law is unconstitutional in all of its applications." Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Porty, -- U.S. --, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 1190 , 170 L.Ed.2d 151 (2008) (internal pune tuation omitted); compare McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 , 124 S.Ct. 619 , 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2008) (upholding facial constitutionality of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 provision outlawing certain corporate "electioneering communications"), with Wisconsin Right to Life…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Field Day, Llc v. County Of Suffolk (2×)
2d Cir. · 2006 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1016 , 163 L.Ed.2d 990 (2006) (holding that McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 , 124 S.Ct. 619 , 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003), which held the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), § 203, facially constitutional, did not foreclose subsequent "as-applied" challenges).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk (2×)
2d Cir. · 2006 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1016 , 163 L.Ed.2d 990 (2006) (holding that McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 , 124 S.Ct. 619 , 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003), which held the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), § 203, facially constitutional, did not foreclose subsequent “as-applied” challenges).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
v.
Federal Election Commission
04-1581.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 23, 2006.
546 U.S. 410
James Bopp, Jr., argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Richard E. Coleson and M. Miller Baker., Solicitor General Clement argued the. cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Deputy Solicitor General Garre, Malcolm L. Stewart, Lawrence H. Norton, Richard B. Bader, David Kolker, and Harry J. Summers*
Per Curiam.
Cited by 48 opinions  |  Published
[*411] Per Curiam.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), § 203, as amended, 116 Stat. 91, prohibits corporations from using their general treasury funds to pay for any “electioneering communications.” 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. III). BCRA §201 defines “electioneering communications” as any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a candidate for federal office and that is broadcast within 30 days of a federal primary election or 60 days of a federal general election in the jurisdiction in which that candidate is running for office. 2 U. S. C. § 434(f)(3) (2000 ed., Supp. III). Appellant Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL), brought this action against the Federal Election Commission (FEC), seeking a judgment declaring BCRA unconstitutional as applied to several broadcast advertisements that it intended to run during the 2004 election. WRTL also sought a preliminary injunction barring the FEC from enforcing BCRA against those advertisements. WRTL does not dispute that its advertisements are covered by BCRA’s definition of prohibited electioneering communications. Instead, it contends that BCRA cannot be constitutionally applied to its particular communications because they constitute “grassroots lobbying advertisements.” Brief for Ap-pellee 35 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the FEC has statutory authority to exempt by regulation certain communications from BCRA’s prohibition on electioneering communications, § 434(f)(3)(B)(iv), at this point, it has not done so for the types of advertisements at issue here.

The three-judge District Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and subsequently dismissed WRTL’s[*412] complaint in an unpublished opinion. We noted probable jurisdiction, 545 U. S. 1164 (2005). Appellant asks us to reverse the judgment of the District Court because that court incorrectly read a footnote in our opinion in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), as foreclosing any “as-applied” challenges to the prohibition on electioneering communications. We agree with WRTL that the District Court misinterpreted the relevance of our “uphold[ing] all applications of the primary definition” of electioneering communications. Id., at 190, n. 73. Contrary to the understanding of the District Court, that footnote merely notes that because we found BCRA’s primary definition of “electioneering communication” facially valid when used with regard to BCRA’s disclosure and funding requirements, it was unnecessary to consider the constitutionality of the backup definition Congress provided. Ibid. In upholding §203 against a facial challenge, we did not purport to resolve future as-applied challenges.

The FEC argues that the District Court also rested its decision on the alternative ground that the facts of this case “suggest that WRTL’s advertisements may fit the very type of activity McConnell found Congress had a compelling interest in regulating.” No. 04-1260 (DC, Aug. 17,2004), App. to Juris. Statement 8a. It is not clear to us, however, that the District Court intended its opinion to rest on this ground. For one thing, the court used the word “may.” For another, its separate opinion dismissing WRTL’s challenge with prejudice characterized its previous opinion as holding that “WRTL’s ‘as-applied’ challenge to BCRA is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell.” Id., at 3a. Given this ambiguity, we cannot say with certainty that the District Court’s dismissal was based on this alternative ground.

We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case for the District Court to consider the merits of WRTL’s as-applied challenge in the first instance.

It is so ordered.