Thompson v. Hebdon

2019 United States Supreme Court case
Thompson v. Hebdon
Decided November 25, 2019
Full case nameDavid Thompson, et al., v. Heather Hebdon, Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission, et al.
Docket no.19-122
Citations589 U.S. ___ (more)
140 S. Ct. 348; 205 L. Ed. 2d 245
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendants, sub nom. Thompson v. Dauphinais, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1023 (D. Alaska 2016); aff'd, 909 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2018.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinion
Per curiam
StatementGinsburg
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Thompson v. Hebdon, 589 U.S. ___ (2019), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance. The Ninth Circuit's decision was vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court.

Background

The Supreme Court was asked to review the Ninth' Circuit's decision upholding Alaska's restrictions on campaign finance after the Cato Institute petitioned to the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit.[1] Alaska's limit on campaign contributions was $500 per year to an individual candidate and $1,000 per year to a political group.[2][3]

Decision

The Court issued its decision on November 25, 2019, vacating and remanding the Ninth Circuit's decision for further review.[4][5]

Reactions

Although the Supreme Court again ruled against campaign finance regulations in this decision, the court avoided making a sweeping decision which would have called into question other donation limits in other states. Therefore, UC Irvine election law professor Richard L. Hasen said that this was the "least bad way" campaign finance reform groups could have lost this case.[2]

According to Jason Torchinsky, a campaign finance lawyer working in one of the GOP's most prominent law firms, the decision shows that a majority of Justices do not agree with low campaign donation limits, but might be hesitant to take on this fight in today's political climate.[2]

Statement by Ginsburg

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a statement respecting the Supreme Court's decision vacating and remanding the ruling of the Ninth Circuit.[4] Ginsburg's statement notes that campaign finance limits regarding political parties in Alaska are more lenient than the limits on contributions to individual donors, unlike the laws in Vermont. Ginsburg expressed concern that Alaska is prone to be influenced excessively by the fossil fuel industry because it is a sparsely populated state that receives much of its revenue from the fossil fuel industry.[4]

References

  1. ^ Anchorage judge orders Alaska campaign contribution limit to be reinstated
  2. ^ a b c Alaska’s Campaign Finance Loss a ‘Win’ for Reformers (Corrected)
  3. ^ Alaska’s campaign finance laws attract national attention
  4. ^ a b c Thompson v. Hebdon, No. 19-122, 589 U.S. ___ (2019).
  5. ^ Liptak, Adam (November 25, 2019). "Supreme Court Acts in Campaign Finance and Libel Cases (Published 2019)". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 13, 2023.

External links

  • Text of Thompson v. Hebdon, No. 19-122, 589 U.S. ___ (2019) is available from: Justia  Oyez (oral argument audio)  Supreme Court (slip opinion) 
  • v
  • t
  • e
Public displays
and ceremonies
Statutory religious
exemptions
Public funding
Religion in
public schools
Private religious speech
Internal church affairs
Taxpayer standing
Blue laws
Other
Exclusion of religion
from public benefits
Ministerial exception
Statutory religious exemptions
RFRA
RLUIPA
Unprotected
speech
Incitement
and sedition
Libel and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Vagueness
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Compelled representation
Government grants
and subsidies
Government
as speaker
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Prior restraints
and censorship
Privacy
Taxation and
privileges
Defamation
Broadcast media
Copyrighted materials
Incorporation
Protection from prosecution
and state restrictions
Organizations
Future Conduct
Solicitation
Membership restriction
Primaries and elections