skip navigation
search

DOE v. REED ( No. 09-559 )
586 F. 3d 671, affirmed.
Syllabus

Opinion
[Roberts]
Concurrence
[Breyer]
Concurrence
[Alito]
Concurrence
[Sotomayor]
Concurrence
[Stevens]
Concurrence
[Scalia]
Dissent
[Thomas]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

561 U. S. ____ (2010)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JOHN DOE #1, et al. , PETITIONERS v. SAM REED,
WASHINGTON SECRETARY OF STATE, et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit


[June 24, 2010]

     Justice Breyer , concurring.

     In circumstances where, as here, “a law significantly implicates competing constitutionally protected interests in complex ways,” the Court balances interests. Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC , 528 U. S. 377, 402 (2000) ( Breyer, J ., concurring). “And in practice that has meant asking whether the statute burdens any one such interest in a manner out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon the others.” Ibid. As I read their opinions, this is what both the Court and Justice Stevens do. See ante , at 7 (opinion of the Court); post , at 2 ( Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). And for the reasons stated in those opinions (as well as many of the reasons discussed by Justice Sotomayor ), I would uphold the statute challenged in this case. With this understanding, I join the opinion of the Court and Justice Stevens’ opinion.