skip navigation
search

FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N v. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC. (Nos. 06-969 and 06-970)
466 F. Supp. 2d 195, affirmed.
Syllabus

Opinion
[Roberts]
Concurrence
[Alito]
Concurrence
[Scalia]
Dissent
[Souter]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

551 U. S. ____ (2007)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, APPELLANT

06–969    v.

WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC.

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, et al., APPELLANTS

06–970    v.

WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC.

on appeals from the united states district court forthe district of columbia


[June 25, 2007]

    Justice Alito, concurring.

    I join the principal opinion because I conclude (a) that §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied, cannot constitutionally ban any advertisement that may reasonably be interpreted as anything other than an appeal to vote for or against a candidate, (b) that the ads at issue here may reasonably be interpreted as something other than such an appeal, and (c) that because §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face. If it turns out that the implementation of the as-applied standard set out in the principal opinion impermissibly chills political speech, see post, at 15–16 (Scalia, J., joined by Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), we will presumably be asked in a future caseto reconsider the holding in McConnell v. FederalElection Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93 (2003) , that §203 is facially constitutional.