Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the First Amendment rights of candidates for judicial office. In a 5–4 decision, the court ruled that Minnesota's announce clause, which forbade candidates for judicial office from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues, was unconstitutional.
122 S. Ct. 2528; 153 L. Ed. 2d 694; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4883; 70 U.S.L.W. 4720; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 518
Argument
Oral argument
Opinion announcement
Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior
Judgment for defendants, 63 F. Supp. 2d 967 (Minn. 1999); affirmed, 247 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2001); cert. granted, 534 U.S. 1054 (2001)
Holding
"Announce clauses" of judicial ethics codes which prohibit judicial candidates from announcing their views on how disputed legal or political issues be decided are unconstitutional.
Minnesota, like many states, had a code of judicial ethics[1] that constrained candidates seeking to be elected as judges from discussing issues that could come before them if elected and announcing their views—referred to as an "announce clause."
In 1996, Gregory Wersal ran for associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. He distributed literature critical of several Minnesota Supreme Court decisions. An ethics complaint was filed against him; however, the board, which was to review the complaint, dismissed the charges and cast doubt upon the constitutionality of the announce clause.
In 1998, Wersal ran again for the same office. However, this time, he preemptively filed suit in Federal District Court against Suzanne White, the chairperson of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards. Wersal charged that the announce clause limited his right to free speech and made a mockery of the election process by denying him the ability to wage a meaningful campaign. The Republican Party of Minnesota joined in Wersal's lawsuit, arguing that the restrictions prevented the Party from learning Wersal's views on the issues and thus making an informed decision to oppose or support his candidacy.
In a 5–4 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and declared Minnesota's announce clause to be in violation of the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that Minnesota's announce clause "burden[ed] a category of speech that is at the core of First Amendment freedoms -- speech about the qualifications of candidates for public office." The Court concluded that the announce clause was not narrowly tailored to serve the state's compelling interest in judicial impartiality and therefore failed the test of strict scrutiny.
Post-decisionedit
In 2006, a retired Justice O'Connor expressed concern about her vote in the White case, stating, "That (Minnesota) case, I confess, does give me pause."[2]
^See generally, ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct (2004);[1] Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct (2006).[2]See also, in specific, ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct (1972), Canon 7(B); Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct (2000) Canon 5(A)(3)(d)(i).
^Egelko, Bob (November 4, 2006). "Former justice warns of threat to judiciary / O'Connor tells of political assault on court's autonomy". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 30, 2015.
External linksedit
Text of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536U.S. 765 (2002) is available from:CornellFindlawJustia
mp3 Recording of the oral argument
Transcript of the oral argument
PDF of slip opinion
Article on political vs. independent judges at The Economist
January 01, 1970
republican, party, minnesota, white, 2002, decision, supreme, court, united, states, regarding, first, amendment, rights, candidates, judicial, office, decision, court, ruled, that, minnesota, announce, clause, which, forbade, candidates, judicial, office, fro. Republican Party of Minnesota v White 536 U S 765 2002 was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the First Amendment rights of candidates for judicial office In a 5 4 decision the court ruled that Minnesota s announce clause which forbade candidates for judicial office from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues was unconstitutional Republican Party of Minnesota v WhiteSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued March 26 2002Decided June 27 2002Full case nameRepublican Party of Minnesota et al Petitioners v Suzanne White Chairperson Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards et al Docket no 01 521Citations536 U S 765 more 122 S Ct 2528 153 L Ed 2d 694 2002 U S LEXIS 4883 70 U S L W 4720 15 Fla L Weekly Fed S 518ArgumentOral argumentOpinion announcementOpinion announcementCase historyPriorJudgment for defendants 63 F Supp 2d 967 Minn 1999 affirmed 247 F 3d 854 8th Cir 2001 cert granted 534 U S 1054 2001 Holding Announce clauses of judicial ethics codes which prohibit judicial candidates from announcing their views on how disputed legal or political issues be decided are unconstitutional Court membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P Stevens Sandra Day O ConnorAntonin Scalia Anthony KennedyDavid Souter Clarence ThomasRuth Bader Ginsburg Stephen BreyerCase opinionsMajorityScalia joined by Rehnquist O Connor Kennedy ThomasConcurrenceO ConnorConcurrenceKennedyDissentStevens joined by Souter Ginsburg BreyerDissentGinsburg joined by Stevens Souter BreyerLaws appliedU S Const amend I Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct 5 A 3 d i Contents 1 Background 2 The decision 3 Post decision 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksBackground editMinnesota like many states had a code of judicial ethics 1 that constrained candidates seeking to be elected as judges from discussing issues that could come before them if elected and announcing their views referred to as an announce clause In 1996 Gregory Wersal ran for associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court He distributed literature critical of several Minnesota Supreme Court decisions An ethics complaint was filed against him however the board which was to review the complaint dismissed the charges and cast doubt upon the constitutionality of the announce clause In 1998 Wersal ran again for the same office However this time he preemptively filed suit in Federal District Court against Suzanne White the chairperson of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards Wersal charged that the announce clause limited his right to free speech and made a mockery of the election process by denying him the ability to wage a meaningful campaign The Republican Party of Minnesota joined in Wersal s lawsuit arguing that the restrictions prevented the Party from learning Wersal s views on the issues and thus making an informed decision to oppose or support his candidacy The district court found that the announce clause did not violate the Constitution Wersal appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and they affirmed the district court s decision Wersal then filed for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which was granted The decision editIn a 5 4 ruling the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and declared Minnesota s announce clause to be in violation of the First Amendment The Court reasoned that Minnesota s announce clause burden ed a category of speech that is at the core of First Amendment freedoms speech about the qualifications of candidates for public office The Court concluded that the announce clause was not narrowly tailored to serve the state s compelling interest in judicial impartiality and therefore failed the test of strict scrutiny Post decision editIn 2006 a retired Justice O Connor expressed concern about her vote in the White case stating That Minnesota case I confess does give me pause 2 See also editJames Bopp List of United States Supreme Court cases volume 536 Rutan v Republican PartyReferences edit See generally ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct 2004 1 Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct 2006 2 See also in specific ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct 1972 Canon 7 B Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct 2000 Canon 5 A 3 d i Egelko Bob November 4 2006 Former justice warns of threat to judiciary O Connor tells of political assault on court s autonomy San Francisco Chronicle Retrieved April 30 2015 External links editText of Republican Party of Minnesota v White 536 U S 765 2002 is available from Cornell Findlaw Justia First Amendment Library entry on Republican Party of Minnesota v White mp3 Recording of the oral argument Transcript of the oral argument PDF of slip opinion Article on political vs independent judges at The Economist Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Republican Party of Minnesota v White amp oldid 1175149024, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
