Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiff
respondent

Related Cases

Poats v. Givan, 651 F.2d 495
View Case »
Kilopass Technology Inc. v. Sidense Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 5141843
View Case »
Keller v. Wolf, 239 Minn. 397, 58 N.W.2d 891
View Case »
Mothershed v. Justices of Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602, 2005-1 Trade Cases P 74,826, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4749, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6563
View Case »
U.S. ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Texas Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 56 Fed.R.Serv.3d 458
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 153 L.Ed.2d 694, 70 USLW 4720, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5776, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7259, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 518

Facts

The Minnesota Supreme Court adopted a canon of judicial conduct that prohibits judicial candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues. Gregory Wersal, a candidate for associate justice, filed a lawsuit after being deterred from expressing his views during his campaign due to the announce clause. The District Court ruled in favor of the state officials, but the Eighth Circuit's affirmation led to a Supreme Court review, which found the announce clause unconstitutional.

In 1996, one of the petitioners, Gregory Wersal, ran for associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. In the course of the campaign, he distributed literature criticizing several Minnesota Supreme Court decisions on issues such as crime, welfare, and abortion.

Issue

Whether the First Amendment permits the Minnesota Supreme Court to prohibit candidates for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues.

The question presented in this case is whether the First Amendment permits the Minnesota Supreme Court to prohibit candidates for judicial election in that State from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues.

Rule

The announce clause was subjected to strict scrutiny, requiring the state to prove that the restriction was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

The Eighth Circuit concluded, and the parties do not dispute, that the proper test to be applied to determine the constitutionality of such a restriction is strict scrutiny, under which respondents have the burden to prove that the clause is (1) narrowly tailored, to serve (2) a compelling state interest.

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the announce clause failed to meet the strict scrutiny standard. It determined that the clause was not narrowly tailored to serve the interest of judicial impartiality, as it restricted speech based on content and burdened the core First Amendment freedoms related to candidate qualifications. The Court noted that the clause did not effectively prevent bias, as it prohibited candidates from discussing issues rather than specific parties.

Under any definition of “impartiality,” the announce clause fails strict scrutiny. First, it is plain that the clause is not narrowly tailored to serve impartiality (or its appearance) in the traditional sense of the word, i.e., as a lack of bias for or against either party to the proceeding.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the announce clause violated the First Amendment and reversed the lower court's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Held: The announce clause violates the First Amendment.

Who won?

The prevailing party was Gregory Wersal and the other plaintiffs, as the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, stating that the announce clause infringed upon their First Amendment rights.

Reversed and remanded.

You must be