Republican Party of Minnesota v. White
536 U.S. 765 (2002)
A candidate for judge forbidden to say what he thinks about the law
- In one lineEn una línea
- A rule forbidding judicial candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal issues violates the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to judicial impartiality.Una regla que prohíbe a los candidatos a juez anunciar sus opiniones sobre cuestiones jurídicas controvertidas viola la Primera Enmienda porque no está ajustada estrechamente a la imparcialidad judicial.
- RuleRegla
- A content-based restriction on the speech of candidates for elective judicial office must survive strict scrutiny; preventing candidates from stating views on legal questions does not serve impartiality in the sense of open-mindedness and bias toward parties narrowly enough to justify the burden on core political speech.
- Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso
- Assigned for September 18 (chapter 3, sections A and B, through this case) to show how American judges are chosen: in most states by election, which raises the question how a candidate can campaign without compromising impartiality. In Texas, state judges are elected in partisan elections.
- Procedural posturePostura procesal
- A candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court and the state Republican Party challenged the canon of judicial conduct that barred judicial candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues; the district court and Eighth Circuit upheld the canon; the Supreme Court reversed.
Facts
Minnesota elects its judges. Its code of judicial conduct contained an announce clause prohibiting candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues. A lawyer running for the state supreme court wanted to criticize prior decisions and discuss issues; he and the state Republican Party sued.
Procedural posture
Lower federal courts upheld the clause as serving judicial impartiality; the Supreme Court reversed.
Issue
Whether the announce clause violates the First Amendment.
Holding
Yes. The clause restricts core political speech on the basis of content and is not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest: it does not serve impartiality toward parties, it cannot sensibly aim at having judges with no views on the law, and open-mindedness is not served by a rule that only muzzles candidates while sitting judges write opinions on the same issues.
Reasoning
Strict scrutiny applies; the dissents stressed that judicial elections differ from legislative ones because judges apply law rather than represent constituents. The majority answered that a state that chooses to elect judges cannot then forbid the speech that makes elections meaningful.
Rule (own words)
Elect judges and you accept campaigns; states may forbid promises about cases, not opinions about the law.
Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables
What is the paradox the case exposes?
How are judges chosen in Mexico and in Texas?
Say the answer out loud before revealing each part. Rate yourself honestly; the case comes back sooner when you miss.Di la respuesta en voz alta antes de revelar cada parte. Califícate con honestidad; el caso vuelve antes si fallas.
Panic kit: “Could you repeat the question, please?” · “Let me make sure I have the facts right: …” · “I'm not certain, but I'd argue … because …”Kit de pánico: “Could you repeat the question, please?” · “Let me make sure I have the facts right: …” · “I'm not certain, but I'd argue … because …”