WASHINGTON — After a holiday break, the Supreme Court returned to work Friday with unfinished business at hand, some of its toughest cases ahead and a looming decision that could rock the national political landscape in this year of midterm congressional elections.
The justices met privately to pick through the stack of review requests that accumulated since their last public session Dec. 14. They will begin a new round of oral arguments Monday in which new Justice Sonia Sotomayor will probably play a prominent role.
But it is an old case that is puzzling court observers and consuming the political world: a pending decision on whether restrictions on corporate and labor union spending on political campaigns violate the First Amendment.
It arose from a less significant question about whether a conservative group’s financing of and distribution plans for a documentary — “Hillary: The Movie,” a scathing account of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential pursuit — violated the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
The court heard oral arguments on the original question in March but adjourned in June without a decision. Instead, the justices said they would consider the larger question of whether it is constitutional to ban corporations and labor unions from drawing funds from their general treasuries in order to support or oppose candidates.
Congress for decades has outlawed such expenditures, and 22 states have similar bans. Both sides agree that a ruling saying such restrictions are unconstitutional would mean a sea change in the way political campaigns are funded.
The court’s decision to hear the larger question in September, in advance of its regular term, was seen as a possible attempt to expedite the ruling before the midterm primary season. But not much time is left; Illinois will hold elections Feb. 2.
At the September arguments in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission, the more conservative justices indicated deep skepticism about the constitutionality of the bans on corporate spending. But because of the circumspect court’s private deliberations, it is hard to speculate about the cause for delay — except that the justices are deeply divided.
One possibility is that a broad decision declaring the restrictions unconstitutional has drawn lengthy dissents from those in the minority. But equally possible is a failure to find a majority for clear guidance and a multitude of competing opinions in which a narrow majority agrees only on the outcome in this specific case. The ruling could come as early as Tuesday.
The year will bring at least a few new cases to a mostly full docket — the court traditionally stops hearing oral arguments in April.
