In July, AJP filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting corporations from exercising political speech by making candidate-related expenditures. The high court invited briefing on the question of whether the Court should reverse its 1989 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce that allows states to ban corporate sponsored political speech.

In its brief, AJP Counsel Cleta Mitchell and her litigation partner, Michael Lockerby, of the Foley & Lardner, LLP, law firm, urged the high court to invalidate as unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds the myriad state laws that prohibit corporations from making candidate-related expenditures in state elections.

As AJP told the Supreme Court in its brief:

“While silencing AJP solely because it is a corporation, [state laws barring corporate political speech] leave voters free to hear the viewpoints of AJP’s political opponents, who are not subject to the same political speech restrictions as those imposed on AJP. AJP was formed to combat the well-organized efforts of trial lawyers to influence state legislation and policies related to civil justice reform. Personal injury lawyers actively engage in the political process to protect and promote candidates and policies that oppose, repeal, or chip away at tort reform laws. Trial lawyers are able to use their “immense aggregations of wealth” to engage in unlimited political speech, while AJP and its members are not.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling could come at any time.

If AJP is successful, it will be a huge victory for the business community in fighting the trial bar, which for too long has had the resources and legal protections to support and oppose candidates, while AJP has been severely restricted in the manner in which its voice - and that of its members - can be heard.

Click Here to download the brief.