Interesting. Some SCOTUS watchers predicted they’d try to mitigate their Citizens United ruling:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal of a decision upholding a century-old ban on corporate campaign contributions in federal elections.
The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from William P. Danielczyk Jr. and Eugene R. Biagi, who wanted the courts to say the ban violates corporations’ free-speech rights.
A federal judge agreed with them, but the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., overturned that decision. The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision struck down a prohibition against corporate spending on campaign activities by independent groups but left untouched the ban on direct contributions to candidates.
The judge said independent expenditures and direct contributions were both political speech, but the appeals court said they must be regulated differently.
The justices will not review that decision.
So then why did Montana get to stand?
Don’t know.
You can never read much into a denial of cert. It’s possible that one of the conservative justices was going to have to recuse because of a relationship to the litigants or counsel. The Court abhors 4 to 4 decisions where the result is likely to be reversed when the next case comes along. The Montana case was struck because it raised the question whether Citizens United was fundamental constitutional law binding on the states. The majority was bound to rule against the prohibition.
One of the ‘Gang of Five’ recuse themselves? What a quaint idea. It’s so . . . 20th Century. I wonder if they’re hoping to align themselves with the state Rethug who wants to give Corporations the right to vote.