Ну разумеется. Решения ВС обязательны для всех судов по всем аналогичным делам. Вот каким было решение ВС по делу "Остин против Мичиганской торговой палаты" (мнение большинства писал судья Маршалл):
The majority concludes that the Michigan Act is narrowly tailored. First, it seeks support in the availability of political action committees (PAC's) as an alternative to direct speech. Second, the majority advances the rationale that the restriction protects shareholders from the use of corporate funds to support speech with which they may not agree. Third, it asserts that independent expenditures funded by corporate wealth pose inherent dangers. None of these justifications can suffice to save the Act. http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/652/case.html
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: читайте и обрящете
Date: 2010-02-05 01:23 pm (UTC)The majority concludes that the Michigan Act is narrowly tailored. First, it seeks support in the availability of political action committees (PAC's) as an alternative to direct speech. Second, the majority advances the rationale that the restriction protects shareholders from the use of corporate funds to support speech with which they may not agree. Third, it asserts that independent expenditures funded by corporate wealth pose inherent dangers. None of these justifications can suffice to save the Act.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/652/case.html