First Amendment, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White

[A18]

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002)

The Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted a canon of judicial conduct that prohibits a "candidate for a judicial office" from "announc[ing] his or her views on disputed legal or political issues" (hereinafter announce clause). While running for associate justice of that court, petitioner Gregory Wersal (and others) filed this suit seeking a declaration that the announce clause violates the First Amendment and an injunction against its enforcement. The District Court granted respondent officials summary judgment, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Held: The announce clause violates the First Amendment.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. O'Connor, J., and Kennedy, J., filed concurring opinions. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined.

[Emsworth]

Sound. Political speech is the primary object of First Amendment protection. As Justice Stewart once wrote, "the constitutional guarantee [of freedom of speech] has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." For a state to restrain the speech of political candidates is certainly unconstitutional.

[nini2287]

Sound, although if I were running for a judgeship I wouldn't announce my political views.

[Q]

Strange how the court broke on this, despite the usual 5 on one side and 4 on the other.