In a historic decision last week, the Supreme Court in its infinite benevolence decided to lift the shackles of oppression from our corporations, and finally allowed them to freely exercise their First Amendment rights — to spend unlimited money in federal elections.

Dedicated observers of the Supreme Court, of course, could remind you that this is merely the latest in a long line to assist the downtrodden during their hour of need. In the antebellum era, there was the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, in which the Court acted swiftly to protect the property rights of plantation owners. And in the historic Slaughter-House Cases of the 1870s, the Court inserted themselves into the messy issue to ensure that the 14th Amendment was not interpreted so as to duly restrict the police power of the states.

This case, Citizens United v. FEC, embodied a clear David and Goliath battle. The plaintiff, Citizens United, represented a ragtag group of muckraking filmmakers that wished to show their ground-breaking motion picture, “Hillary: The Movie,” just before the 2008 Democratic primaries. Meanwhile, the Federal Election Commission, the bureaucratic behemoth responsible for regulating elections, claimed that their movie constituted so-called “electioneering communication,” which was prohibited under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Thankfully, the Court realized that McCain-Feingold’s prohibition on corporations and unions using their general treasury funds to influence elections violated our Constitution.

Some might argue that Citizens United represents so-called “judicial activism,” because the Court not only went against the will of our elected leaders in striking down a provision of a law, that they passed — and was inconsistent with campaign finance case-law precedent, such as Buckley v. Valeo and McConnell v. FEC, which is only seven years old — but also used overly broad interpretation of the First Amendment. It used to just be old-guard liberals such as William O. Douglas and Hugo Black who stubbornly insisted that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” literally meant no law; now it seems paleo-conservatives such as Antonin Scalia and moderates such as Anthony Kennedy too have come around.

However, there is a fundamental usefulness, and perhaps necessity, of judicial activism in order to ensure the evolution of our legal system. Brown v. Board of Education, for instance, was an example of judicial activism. It overturned the school segregation laws of many southern states and relied on a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment, yet today we remain thankful for its outcome. The decision in Citizens United is no different from Brown; it is a landmark case that will establish the legal precedent for protecting the rights of another historically mistreated group in American society, corporations.

Distinguished statesman John Cornyn, R-Texas, eloquently summed up the magnitude of the Citizens United decision: “I am pleased that the Supreme Court has acted to protect the Constitution’s First-Amendment rights of free speech and association. These are the bedrock principles that underpin our system of governance and strengthen our democracy.” With a bit of clever legal alchemy, the Supreme Court has rightly established that speech does, in fact, equal money, and the right to this speech extends to corporations during elections. With this decision, corporations finally have access to the leg up that they have never, ever been accorded in our democracy. And just in time; moneyed interests have always supported the most qualified and public-spirited candidates for public office and now, with financial reform’s turn on the legislative docket having arrived, we’ll need those politicians indebted to corporate interests now more than ever.

However, the Supreme Court’s work is far from over. True, corporations now have many of the privileges and responsibilities of citizens; they are protected by the Bill of Rights, can enter into contracts and must pay taxes. But corporations do not possess the most fundamental right that allows their voices to be heard — the right to vote. The Court must act to end the unjust disfranchisement of our corporations. It is up to Scalia, Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Jr. and John G. Roberts, the Court’s most forceful advocates for progress, to help this hapless minority group finally reach the mountaintop and fully realize the dream of equality under the law.

Matthew Lem is a College senior from New Haven, Conn.