Today in Supreme Court History: January 21

Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (decided January 21, 2010): Court disallows on First Amendment grounds any restrictions on use of general corporate or union funds to advocate or denigrate political candidates, explicitly overruling McConnell v. FEC, 2003, and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 1990, except for requiring identification of who is putting out the ads and disclaiming that it represents the views of the broadcaster (in effect, eviscerating the McCain-Feingold Act)

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (decided January 21, 1974): failure to provide English language instruction to first-generation Chinese students violates Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it in effect excludes them from participation in program receiving government assistance (overruled to the extent that nonintentional discrimination is no longer actionable under that statute, see discussion in Alexander v. Sandoval, 2001)

Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean, 574 U.S. 383 (decided January 21, 2015): air marshal was protected by whistleblower statute (5 U.S.C. §2302(b)(8)(A)) from termination because his disclosure to reporter of possibly dangerous cancellation of air marshal assignments during terrorist alert (supposedly to save money) was not within the statute’s exception for “disclosures specifically prohibited by law”

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (decided January 21, 2009): no warrant needed for police entry into home because defendant had already agreed to let in the informant to whom he then sold drugs (of course he didn’t know it was an informant); this is called the “consent-once-removed” doctrine, already accepted (does this sound right to you?); therefore entry not in violation of “clearly established law”, and police officers entitled to qualified immunity (unanimous decision)

United States v. Jimenez Recio, 537 U.S. 270 (decided January 21, 2003): can be charged with conspiracy even if joined conspiracy after it had been defeated (agreed to come pick up truck even though police had already seized drugs from it and set up sting with presumably coerced help of original truck driver)

Andrew v. White, 604 U.S. --- (decided January 21, 2025): habeas granted and murder conviction vacated because introduction of unduly prejudicial evidence was contrary to “clearly established federal law” (accused of conspiring with boyfriend to murder her husband for the insurance proceeds, even though she was shot in the arm in the process; prosecution introduced evidence of her abundant sex life, wearing sexy outfits, having sex in cars, etc.; Thomas and Gorsuch dissent, arguing that evidence of guilt was overwhelming and “sex and marriage were unavoidable issues, and the State introduced a variety of evidence about her sexual behavior”)