Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce
494 U.S. 652 · Decided March 27, 1990 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce was decided on March 27, 1990 by a vote of 6–3. The Court reversed the lower court's decision. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Campaign spending” in the First Amendment area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 494 U.S. 652 · 110 S. Ct. 1391 · 108 L. Ed. 2d 652 · 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1665
- Docket number
- 88-1569
- Decided
- March 27, 1990
- Argued
- October 31, 1989
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority opinion
- Thurgood Marshall
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Campaign spending
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Legal provision
- First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Majority | |
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Dissent | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
Full case caption
Austin, Michigan Secretary of State, et al. v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce
SCDB identifiers: case 1989-055, docket 1989-055-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Campaign spending”
- Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.Law held unconstitutional
- Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action CommitteeLaw held unconstitutional
- Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee and Douglas Jones v. Federal Election CommissionLaw held unconstitutional
- Federal Election Commission v. National Right to Work Committee
- Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign CommitteeLaw held unconstitutional
- Bread Political Action Committee v. Federal Election Commission
Cases on the same legal provision: First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
- Butterworth v. SmithLaw held unconstitutional
- Osborne v. Ohio
- Eddie Keller v. State Bar of California
- Gary E. Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of IllinoisLaw held unconstitutional
- University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
Same Term, same area (First Amendment)
- University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fw/pbs, Inc. v. City of DallasLaw held unconstitutional
- Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California
- Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association
- Butterworth v. SmithLaw held unconstitutional
- Employment Division v. Smith
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error