Wagner v. Federal Election Commission’s Empirical Analysis
793 F.3d 1 · 2015
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 603 · 18 U.S.C. § 611 (§ 216 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) · 2 U.S.C. § 437H (§ 310 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) · 2 U.S.C. § 441C (§ 317 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) · 41 U.S.C. § 1901 · 52 U.S.C. § 30101 · 52 U.S.C. § 30109
Relies on Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Buckley v. Valeo · Elrod v. Burns · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Although the Court has on occasion applied strict scrutiny in examining equal protection challenges in cases involving First Amendment rights, it has done so only when a First Amendment analysis would itself have required such scrutiny. There is consequently no case in which the Supreme Court has employed strict scrutiny to analyze a contribution restriction under equal protection principles.... This will not be the first.... "[A]lthough equal protection analysis focuses upon the validity of the classification rather than the speech restriction, 'the critical questions asked are the same.' We believe that the same level of scrutiny ... is therefore appropriate in both contexts.... "[I]n a case like this one, in which there is no doubt that the interests invoked in support of the challenged legislative * classification are legitimate, and no doubt that the classification was designed to vindicate those interests rather than disfavor a particular speaker or viewpoint, the challengers 'can fare no better under the Equal Protection Clause than under the First Amendment itself' " (footnote and citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[L]aws making criminal the giving and taking of bribes deal only with the most blatant and specific attempts of those with money to influence governmental action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a lesser but still rigorous standard of review”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.