Loading record
Public disputes concerning political parties, public officials, institutions, political conduct, and governance in the United States.
Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.
2 statements on this page. Dates: June 23, 2005 to January 21, 2010
2 matching statements. Dates: June 23, 2005 to January 21, 2010
2 published statements. Dates: June 23, 2005 to January 21, 2010
2 published statements. Dates: June 23, 2005 to January 21, 2010
2 statements on this page. Dates: June 23, 2005 to January 21, 2010
Role at the time: Supreme Court associate justice, writing the majority opinion
Statement summary
Kennedy's majority permits disclosure and disclaimer requirements but rejects suppressing corporate political speech.
“The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”
The opinion protects independent corporate and union political spending while permitting disclosure and disclaimer requirements.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Kennedy's majority upholds protection for corporate political speech. Allowing disclosure requirements does not reverse that support for the ruling.
Role at the time: Supreme Court associate justice, writing a concurrence
Statement summary
Kennedy joins the majority and writes that courts must strike down takings clearly intended to favor a particular private party with only incidental or pretextual public benefits.
“transfers intended to confer benefits on particular, favored private entities, and with only incidental or pretextual public benefits, are forbidden by the Public Use Clause.”
The page includes the syllabus, Stevens majority, Kennedy concurrence and O'Connor and Thomas dissents. The opinions differ over public use and private redevelopment.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)The reference point is New London's private economic-redevelopment taking. Kennedy defends the New London result while explaining that courts must reject takings intended to favor a private party with only pretextual public benefits.
