Also known as:but-for motivation · but for motivations · but-for causation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A test that determines whether a political contribution was made for the purpose of obtaining a government legal engagement. The test is satisfied when the contribution would not have been made absent the desire to secure that engagement.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
5
Delayed Maintenance and Explosion
Priya postponed valve maintenance at Orion Chemicals to keep production running. A week later a technician's error triggered an explosion. The but-for motivation test asks whether the delay would have occurred without the desire to avoid downtime, establishing that the postponement supplied the necessary factual link for causation analysis.
Firearm Possession Dispute
Miller possessed a short-barreled shotgun during a confrontation. Prosecutors examined whether the possession would have happened but for a desire to intimidate the victims. The test isolated the motive element and confirmed that the weapon's presence satisfied the factual predicate for the charged offense.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Common Law
Casebooks
Hornbooks
United States v. Miller307 U.S. 174
Partnership Promotion Decision
Hopkins was denied partnership at Price Waterhouse after partners cited her interpersonal style. The court applied the but-for motivation test to determine whether the denial would have occurred absent gender-based comments. The test revealed that sex played a motivating role in the adverse decision.
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins490 U.S. 22 (1989)
Employment Termination Review
Bostock was fired after his employer learned of his sexual orientation. The but-for motivation test asked whether the termination would have taken place absent that information. The test established that the protected characteristic supplied the decisive reason for the discharge.
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia140 S. Ct. 1731, 1739 (2020)
Warranty Claim Evaluation
Cipollone sued Liggett after developing lung cancer from smoking its cigarettes. The but-for motivation test assessed whether the purchase would have occurred absent the company's express warranty statements. The test confirmed that the warranty supplied the causal link between the product and the injury.
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.893 F.2d 541 (3d Cir.1990), affirmed in part and reversed in part, 505 U.S. 504 (1992)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
How does the but-for motivation test differ from ordinary but-for causation?+
The but-for motivation test focuses on whether a specific desire or purpose drove the conduct, rather than merely whether the conduct was a factual antecedent of the result. In the political contribution setting, the test isolates whether the lawyer would have contributed at that level absent the desire for the engagement.
What evidence shows that contributions were made for the prohibited purpose?+
Timing is key. When maximum contributions occur immediately before a government agency announces a search for outside counsel in the firm's practice area, the circumstances support an inference that the contributions would not have reached that level but for the desire to obtain the engagement.
Does a history of prior contributions defeat the but-for motivation finding?+
Not necessarily. A consistent pattern of supporting aligned candidates can indicate that the recent escalation would have occurred regardless of the specific engagement opportunity. The test therefore examines whether the desire for that particular matter supplied the but-for reason for the increased amount.
307 U.S. 174Property
…what he or she did as well.” In taking issue with this instruction, the defendants argue that the phrase “because of” requires but-for causation—a showing that they would not have acted but for the victim’s actual or perceived religious beliefs. The defendants have the better of the argument. In everyday usage, the phrase “because…