Republican Party of Minnesota v. White

2002 United States Supreme Court case
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White
Argued March 26, 2002
Decided June 27, 2002
Full case nameRepublican Party of Minnesota, et al., Petitioners v. Suzanne White, Chairperson, Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards, et al.
Docket no.01-521
Citations536 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 518
ArgumentOral argument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorJudgment 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 membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas
ConcurrenceO'Connor
ConcurrenceKennedy
DissentStevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
DissentGinsburg, joined by Stevens, Souter, Breyer
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct 5(A)(3)(d)(i)

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.

Background

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.

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

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-decision

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 also

References

  1. ^ 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).
  2. ^ 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

  • Text 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
  • v
  • t
  • e
Public displays
and ceremonies
Statutory religious
exemptions
Public funding
Religion in
public schools
Private religious speech
Internal church affairs
Taxpayer standing
Blue laws
Other
Exclusion of religion
from public benefits
Ministerial exception
Statutory religious exemptions
RFRA
RLUIPA
Unprotected
speech
Incitement
and sedition
Libel and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Vagueness
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Compelled representation
Government grants
and subsidies
Government
as speaker
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Prior restraints
and censorship
Privacy
Taxation and
privileges
Defamation
Broadcast media
Copyrighted materials
Incorporation
Protection from prosecution
and state restrictions
Organizations
Future Conduct
Solicitation
Membership restriction
Primaries and elections