cases, for this writing assignment I would like you to explore the case of ,

As a way of continuing to develop the skills of analyzing and briefing complex court cases, for this writing assignment I would like you to explore the case of , 558 U.S. 310 (2010). I have timed this assignment to dovetail with our discussion of corporate political speech under the First Amendment, so this assignment will serve double-duty by preparing you a rousing discussion of the case in class. Same rules apply as did for the previous case brief – primarily follow the example in Appendix A, adding in those sections about procedural history and your own thoughts about the case. I would encourage you to take a few minutes to briefly explore the history of campaign finance law and of the history and facts leading up to this case. Some of the history is included in the case opinion. Below are links to the opinion and to a NYT article about the case to help you get started. As you work on your brief, here are some issues that might help you focus your analysis and flavor your personal opinion sections: 1. This case has an out-of-the-ordinary procedural history. You’ll notice there was no review by a federal circuit court. Why is this? (nt: This is not in the opinion explicitly but can be found with some internet research.) 2. The cases treated as prior precedent by the Court – how were campaign finance/political speech restrictions justified? 3. What reasoning did the Court use in this particular case to sidestep those presidential cases? We talked about how courts should only do this in extraordinary circumstances. What did the Court view as those reasons here? 4. The dissenting opinion argued for the Court to decide the case on “narrower grounds.” As a general rule, courts should decide cases on the narrowest grounds possible. That is, if they can reach the same conclusion on, for instance, a technicality, they should refrain from making sweeping Constitutional changes. What narrower grounds did the dissent argue for in , and why did the majority opt not to decide the case on narrower grounds? You can also see Justice Scalia in his concurring opinion bicker with Justice Stevens (dissenting) over who is actually adhering to Justice Scalia’s “originalist” calling card. This case is again a little unique in the amount of opening conflict between the justices in the recorded decisions. Perhaps that is an indication of the weight the Justices felt in deciding this case. Please label your assignment with your DU ID number. Do not include your name in the file or filename. Please use a 12-point font and double-spaced pages. Be sure to properly credit information and quotations from outside sources, particularly sources I have not provided for you. Three to five pages should suffice, but there is not hard limit for this assignment. I will give you until 11:59 on April 19 to submit it. If you have trouble with Canvas submission, please email me your assignment before the deadline. Link to opinion – Link to article –