Incorporating Corporate Rights

W. Marks
{"title":"Incorporating Corporate Rights","authors":"W. Marks","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2445548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Why exactly must the states respect federal Bill of Rights protections that apply to corporations? In Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the Supreme Court held that corporations enjoy the First Amendment’s freedom of speech. Then, in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, 132 S. Ct. 2490 (2012), the Court incorporated that holding to the states. Oddly, though, the per curiam opinion in the latter case did not mention the constitutional doctrine of incorporation. It did not mention due process. It did not even mention the Fourteenth Amendment.This omission is indeed surprising, as the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states but for their incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Now of course, the Court long ago incorporated the First Amendment to the states. But that incorporation was to protect “liberty,” and the Court has also long held that corporations, as artificial entities, do not enjoy the “liberty” that the Fourteenth Amendment protects. So again, why must the states respect federal Bill of Rights protections that apply to corporations? As for the First Amendment, the Court addressed this exact question in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 437 U.S. 765 (1978). The analysis in Bellotti, however, suggests that the First Amendment is somewhat sui generis. That uniqueness naturally raises the question, must the states respect other Bill of Rights protections that corporations now enjoy — or might soon enjoy? Must states provide jury trials for corporate criminal-fines cases? What about if corporations have Second Amendment rights?This Article aims to provide an answer. It draws on two sources, one more recent, and the other from 1868. The first is organizational and associational standing, which scholars have recently proffered as providing coherence to the Court’s corporate-rights jurisprudence. But with respect to the unique problem of incorporating corporate rights, group-entity standing by itself fails to fully solve the incorporation problem. We need something more.That something, this Article argues, is the Fourteenth Amendment’s Property Clause. A property-based account of the incorporation of corporate rights explains why states must respect certain corporate rights. It explains why they do not have to respect others. And it avoids overturning long-standing precedent. After explaining the property-based approach, the Article concludes by explaining which federal Bill of Rights protections corporations should enjoy at the state level.","PeriodicalId":171263,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance: Arrangements & Laws eJournal","volume":"389 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance: Arrangements & Laws eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2445548","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Why exactly must the states respect federal Bill of Rights protections that apply to corporations? In Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the Supreme Court held that corporations enjoy the First Amendment’s freedom of speech. Then, in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, 132 S. Ct. 2490 (2012), the Court incorporated that holding to the states. Oddly, though, the per curiam opinion in the latter case did not mention the constitutional doctrine of incorporation. It did not mention due process. It did not even mention the Fourteenth Amendment.This omission is indeed surprising, as the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states but for their incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Now of course, the Court long ago incorporated the First Amendment to the states. But that incorporation was to protect “liberty,” and the Court has also long held that corporations, as artificial entities, do not enjoy the “liberty” that the Fourteenth Amendment protects. So again, why must the states respect federal Bill of Rights protections that apply to corporations? As for the First Amendment, the Court addressed this exact question in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 437 U.S. 765 (1978). The analysis in Bellotti, however, suggests that the First Amendment is somewhat sui generis. That uniqueness naturally raises the question, must the states respect other Bill of Rights protections that corporations now enjoy — or might soon enjoy? Must states provide jury trials for corporate criminal-fines cases? What about if corporations have Second Amendment rights?This Article aims to provide an answer. It draws on two sources, one more recent, and the other from 1868. The first is organizational and associational standing, which scholars have recently proffered as providing coherence to the Court’s corporate-rights jurisprudence. But with respect to the unique problem of incorporating corporate rights, group-entity standing by itself fails to fully solve the incorporation problem. We need something more.That something, this Article argues, is the Fourteenth Amendment’s Property Clause. A property-based account of the incorporation of corporate rights explains why states must respect certain corporate rights. It explains why they do not have to respect others. And it avoids overturning long-standing precedent. After explaining the property-based approach, the Article concludes by explaining which federal Bill of Rights protections corporations should enjoy at the state level.
合并公司权利
为什么各州必须尊重适用于公司的联邦权利法案的保护?在联合公民诉联邦选举委员会案(558 U.S. 310(2010))中,最高法院认为公司享有第一修正案的言论自由。然后,在美国传统合伙诉布洛克案(132 S. Ct. 2490(2012))中,法院将这一判决纳入各州。然而,奇怪的是,在后一种情况下的法庭意见并没有提到合并的宪法原则。它没有提到正当程序。它甚至没有提到第十四修正案。这一遗漏确实令人惊讶,因为《权利法案》并不适用于各州,而是通过《第十四修正案》的正当程序条款适用于各州。当然,法院很久以前就把第一修正案纳入了各州。但公司的成立是为了保护“自由”,法院也长期认为,公司作为人为的实体,不享有第十四条修正案所保护的“自由”。那么,为什么各州必须尊重适用于公司的联邦权利法案的保护呢?至于第一修正案,最高法院在《波士顿第一国民银行诉贝洛蒂案》(437 U.S. 765(1978))中就这一问题作出了确切的裁决。然而,贝洛蒂案的分析表明,第一修正案在某种程度上是独一无二的。这种独特性自然提出了一个问题,各州是否必须尊重公司现在享有或即将享有的其他权利法案保护?各州必须为公司刑事罚款案件提供陪审团审判吗?如果公司享有第二修正案的权利呢?本文旨在提供一个答案。它借鉴了两个来源,一个是最近的,另一个是1868年的。第一个是组织和协会地位,学者们最近提出,这为最高法院的公司权利判例提供了连贯性。但就公司股权纳入这一独特问题而言,单打独闹的集团实体并不能完全解决公司股权纳入问题。我们需要更多的东西。本文认为,这种东西就是第十四修正案的财产条款。以财产为基础的公司权利的结合解释了为什么国家必须尊重某些公司权利。这就解释了为什么他们不必尊重别人。而且它避免了推翻长期存在的先例。在解释了以财产为基础的方法之后,文章最后解释了公司在州一级应该享受哪些联邦权利法案保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信