Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
E176891
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce was a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld restrictions on corporate independent political expenditures under the First Amendment until it was later overturned by Citizens United.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce canonical | 2 |
| Michigan Chamber of Commerce v. Austin, 424 N.W.2d 13 (Mich. 1988) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1567756 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
Target entity: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce Context triple: [Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overruledPrecedent, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce]
-
A.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
-
B.
Alexander v. Sandoval
Alexander v. Sandoval is a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held there is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
-
C.
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld an Arizona law allowing the state to revoke business licenses of employers who knowingly hire unauthorized immigrants, ruling that it was not preempted by federal immigration law.
-
D.
Timbs v. Indiana
Timbs v. Indiana is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
E.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Target entity: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce Target entity description: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce was a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld restrictions on corporate independent political expenditures under the First Amendment until it was later overturned by Citizens United.
-
A.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
-
B.
Alexander v. Sandoval
Alexander v. Sandoval is a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held there is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
-
C.
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld an Arizona law allowing the state to revoke business licenses of employers who knowingly hire unauthorized immigrants, ruling that it was not preempted by federal immigration law.
-
D.
Timbs v. Indiana
Timbs v. Indiana is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
E.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
campaign finance case ⓘ |
| affectedEntityType |
for-profit corporations
ⓘ
nonprofit corporations ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1989-10-31 ⓘ |
| citation | 494 U.S. 652 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy | William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
U.S. Const. amend. I
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1990-03-27 ⓘ |
| defendant | Richard H. Austin ⓘ |
| defendantOffice |
Secretary of State of Michigan
ⓘ
surface form:
Michigan Secretary of State
|
| dissentBy | Antonin Scalia ⓘ |
| dissentJoinedBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 88-1569 ⓘ |
| firstPage | 652 ⓘ |
| fullName | Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce self-link ⓘ |
| holding |
Restrictions on corporate independent political expenditures under Michigan law do not violate the First Amendment.
ⓘ
The State of Michigan may restrict corporate independent expenditures in support of or opposition to candidates for state office. ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Byron R. White ⓘ Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
Michigan
ⓘ
surface form:
State of Michigan
|
| legalIssue |
The Right of Free Speech
ⓘ
surface form:
First Amendment free speech
campaign finance regulation ⓘ corporate independent expenditures ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Thurgood Marshall ⓘ |
| overruledBy | Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ⓘ |
| overruledByCitation | 558 U.S. 310 ⓘ |
| overruledByDecisionDate | 2010-01-21 ⓘ |
| plaintiff | Michigan Chamber of Commerce ⓘ |
| precedentStatus | overruled in part ⓘ |
| priorHistory |
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Michigan Chamber of Commerce v. Austin, 424 N.W.2d 13 (Mich. 1988)
|
| reasoningKeyConcept |
compelling state interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption
ⓘ
distortion of the political process by corporate wealth ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Buckley v. Valeo
ⓘ
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti ⓘ McConnell v. Federal Election Commission ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| shortName | Austin ⓘ |
| statuteInvolved |
Michigan statutes
ⓘ
surface form:
Michigan Campaign Finance Act
|
| topic |
corporate political speech
ⓘ
election spending limits ⓘ |
| volume | 494 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Subject: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce Description of subject: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce was a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld restrictions on corporate independent political expenditures under the First Amendment until it was later overturned by Citizens United.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.