Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission vs. Texas v. Johnson
A side-by-side comparison of two landmark constitutional law cases
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
558 U.S. 310 (2010) (2010)
Holding
The Court held 5-4 that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the portion of McConnell v. FEC that upheld restrictions on corporate electioneering communications.
Doctrine Established
Corporate Political Speech Protection / Independent Expenditure Freedom
Texas v. Johnson
491 U.S. 397 (1989) (1989)
Holding
The Court held 5-4 that Johnson's flag burning was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The Texas statute was unconstitutional because it was content-based, targeting the expressive element of the conduct -- desecration was defined by its communicative impact. The government's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity did not justify restricting political expression.
Doctrine Established
Flag Burning as Protected Symbolic Speech
Comparison Analysis
Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and Texas v. Johnson (1989) both involve robust protection of expression under the First Amendment, but in very different contexts. Texas v. Johnson held that flag burning constitutes protected symbolic speech and that the government cannot criminalize expressive conduct simply because it finds the message offensive. Citizens United held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, treating political spending as a form of protected speech.
Both cases reflect the principle that the First Amendment protects unpopular or controversial expression and that the government may not suppress speech based on the identity of the speaker or the offensiveness of the message. Johnson's reasoning centered on the content-neutrality principle -- the government was targeting flag desecration precisely because of its communicative impact. Citizens United similarly held that the speaker's corporate identity could not be the basis for restricting political speech, relying on the principle that the First Amendment does not allow the government to determine who may speak.
These cases are both celebrated and criticized for the breadth of their speech protections. Johnson is controversial because it protects conduct many view as deeply disrespectful to the nation. Citizens United is controversial because it equates corporate spending with individual speech and has been blamed for a flood of money in politics. Together, they illustrate the First Amendment's counter-majoritarian function -- protecting expression that majorities would prefer to suppress.
Similarities
- Both protect controversial forms of expression that majorities sought to suppress through legislation
- Both apply strict scrutiny to content-based restrictions on speech and find the government's interests insufficient
- Both have generated significant political backlash and proposals for constitutional amendments to overrule them
- Both rest on the principle that the government may not restrict expression based on disagreement with the message conveyed
Differences
- Johnson involved symbolic conduct (flag burning) by an individual, while Citizens United involved political spending by corporations
- Johnson addressed the government's interest in preserving the flag as a national symbol, while Citizens United addressed the government's interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption in elections
- Citizens United extended First Amendment protection to corporate entities, raising questions about corporate personhood not present in Johnson
- Johnson was a relatively straightforward application of the content-neutrality doctrine, while Citizens United required the Court to overrule precedent (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce) and overturn long-standing campaign finance regulations
- The political valence differs: Johnson is typically celebrated by the political left, while Citizens United is typically championed by the political right
Why This Comparison Matters
These cases test students' ability to apply free speech principles consistently regardless of whether they agree with the outcome. A professor might present a fact pattern involving government restrictions on corporate political speech or symbolic protest and ask students to analyze the claim under strict scrutiny. The key insight is that First Amendment doctrine does not distinguish between speech we like and speech we find offensive or dangerous -- the analytical framework applies uniformly.
More Constitutional Law Comparisons
Marbury v. Madison vs. McCulloch v. Maryland
Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) are the two foundational Marshall Court decisions that established the structural architecture of American constitutional law. Marbury created judicial review, empowering courts to strike down unconstitutional legislation, while McCulloch established the doctrine of implied powers and federal supremacy over state interference. Together they resolved the two most fundamental questions about the new Constitution: who interprets it, and how broadly should federal power be construed.
Gibbons v. Ogden vs. Wickard v. Filburn
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) and Wickard v. Filburn (1942) represent two critical poles in the evolution of Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Gibbons was the first major Commerce Clause case, in which Chief Justice Marshall interpreted 'commerce among the several states' broadly to include navigation and any commercial intercourse that affects more than one state. Wickard pushed this doctrine to its outer boundary, holding that a farmer growing wheat for personal consumption could be regulated under the Commerce Clause because the aggregate effect of many such farmers on the interstate wheat market was substantial.
United States v. Lopez vs. United States v. Morrison
United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000) are the landmark Rehnquist Court decisions that imposed the first meaningful limits on Commerce Clause power since the New Deal. Lopez struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act because possessing a gun near a school was not economic activity and Congress had made no jurisdictional findings connecting the conduct to interstate commerce. Morrison extended this holding by striking down the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act, even though Congress had compiled extensive legislative findings documenting the economic effects of gender-motivated violence.
Gonzales v. Raich vs. United States v. Lopez
Gonzales v. Raich (2005) and United States v. Lopez (1995) represent the tension at the heart of modern Commerce Clause doctrine. Lopez established the first post-New Deal limit on congressional power, holding that regulation of non-economic activity (gun possession near schools) exceeded the Commerce Clause. Just ten years later, Raich appeared to pull back toward the expansive Wickard v. Filburn approach, upholding federal authority to prohibit home-grown marijuana for personal medical use under California law. The apparent contradiction has generated significant academic debate.