What is the legal, constitutional process

[BigmanPigman]

for getting the SCOTUS to reverse its Citizens United decision? Is there a process for it?

[marylandblue]

1. Get more liberals on the court and bring a new case

[Shrek]

2. Amend the constitution

Or possibly another case could come before the court in which they rule that Citizens United was wrongly decided.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. There has to be another, similar case before them.

They can't just reverse it on their own because they want to (not that this court would even want to); there has to be an existing case or controversy. That is, another case has to make its way through the system, and it would have to be one that didn't get thrown out by lower courts using Citizens United as authority. So it would have to raise the same issue but on facts that were different enough to survive lower court dismissals, and that would convince the court to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari - that is, agree to hear it at all. The Supremes don't have to hear all the cases that are submitted to them on writs of cert; in fact, of the 7,000 to 8,000 cert petitions filed each term, the court grants the petition and hears oral argument in only about 80. Granting a cert petition requires the votes of four justices.

In other words, we shouldn't hold our breath.

[unblock]

4. scotus itself can reverse it at any time.

though that process usually takes a relevant case, and some reason to think they'll come to a different conclusion, which in turn usually means favorable changes in the composition of the supreme court.

so, not bloody likely any time soon.

alternatively, congress could pass, and the president could sign, another law that restricts campaign financing in a way that passes constitutional muster. bit of a challenge, that, even if congress and the president were so inclined.


in practice, it would take democrats regaining control of both houses of congress and the presidency, then stacking the court with enough liberals to overturn it. either that or wait a couple decades, if we can survive that long....

[Demsrule86]

6. We could get it done with 51 votes if we blew up the filibuster.

[unblock]

9. that part's easy, it's the trifecta that's the hard part (white house and both houses of congress).

in theory, that should be a piece of cake come 2020, but with these election-stealers, who knows.

[Demsrule86]

12. True that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. They can't reverse it "at any time" unless there's a case before them

that raises the same or similar issues. There has to be a justiciable controversy.

[unblock]

11. yeah, i had that in the body of my post.

on the other hand, what they can do without a case present is make speeches, which they do from time to time.

if they were so inclined, they could use those speeches to signal that they are ready for a change and effectively invite a fresh challenge so that they do have a case regarding which they can overturn the old decision. of course they're never so explicit, but legal analysts can read between the lines.

the process nevertheless takes years in practice.

[Demsrule86]

5. You need a new case, a new liberal majority and a good argument.

[TheSmarterDog]

7. Vote for Democrats. Repeat for 60 yrs.

[Codeine]

8. The only solutions are long term

and involve winning a lot of elections, gaining lasting control of Congress, and waiting out the lifespans of the current sitting conservative majority.

Politics is cyclical, and we need the cycle to swing our way at the same time right-leaning Justices are leaving or dying.