First Amendment

Issues

The citizens of the State of Washington enacted a “top-two” primary law, Initiative 872, which allows primary voters to vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. The top-two candidates from the primary then advance to the general election. The law also permits candidates for some offices to disclose the name of their preferred political party on the ballot. The Republican Party argues that the law violates the right of association protected by the First Amendment. Washington State Grange argues that a candidate’s personal “preference” serves only as information for the voter, while the parties retain the right to nominate and endorse their own candidates. The Court must decide whether top-two primary systems that permit candidates to disclose their party preference on the ballot, without having any formal affiliation with the political party, violate political parties’ associational rights.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Issues

The Supreme Court will determine whether states may issue rules of judicial conduct that prohibit judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign funds. Williams-Yulee contends that Canon 7C(1), a Florida rule of judicial conduct prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign funds, is unconstitutional because it restricts judicial candidates’ speech and fails strict scrutiny review since it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The Florida Bar counters that the rule is constitutional because it serves the Florida’s interest in ensuring judicial impartiality and is narrowly tailored because candidates can exercise free speech and may raise funds through alternative means. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case implicates the type of fundraising initiatives judicial candidates are permitted to take when running their campaigns. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Plaintiff Wisconsin Right to Life broadcasted three advertisements condemning the Senate for filibustering President Bush’s judicial nominees and urging viewers to contact Senator Feingold who was campaigning for reelection at the time. Wisconsin Right to Life believed that continued broadcasting of the ads would violate the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s prohibition on electioneering communications. Accordingly, Wisconsin Right to Life filed suit to request an injunction against the Federal Election Commission for possible enforcement of the restrictions on electioneering against Wisconsin Right to Life, and a judgment that the definition of electioneering, as applied to Wisconsin Right to Life’s ads, violated the Constitution. The court relied on a prior Supreme Court case, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, to dismiss Wisconsin Right to Life’s “as-applied” challenge. Wisconsin Right to Life now argues that McConnell did not, indeed could not, preclude as-applied challenges and that the ads were a permitted form of grassroots lobbying, not electioneering. The Federal Election Commission argues that McConnell squarely precluded as-applied challenges and that Wisconsin Right to Life’s distinction between grassroots lobbying and electioneering is a line drawn in the sand on a windy day.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

In 2004, President Bush made an unannounced campaign stop at the Jacksonville Inn in Jacksonville, Oregon. Expecting the President to appear only at the nearby Honeymoon Cottage, pro-Bush and anti-Bush demonstrators arranged lawful demonstrations in the area. When the President changed his plans, Secret Service agents ordered local law enforcement to clear the area where the anti-Bush protestors were demonstrating. The anti-Bush demonstrators sued for viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. Secret Service agents Wood and Savage argue that the Ninth Circuit’s generalization of the protestors’ constitutional rights incorrectly deprived them of qualified immunity. Wood and Savage also argue that protestors failed to adequately plead a plausible claim because the complaint shows that the agents had a permissible security motive. Respondent Moss argues that the Ninth Circuit properly denied Wood and Savage qualified immunity because the agents moved the protesters because of the content of their speech. Moss also argues that he adequately pleaded viewpoint discrimination by laying out facts that plausibly establish the agents’ discriminatory motive. This case will determine whether law enforcement agents are able to account for demonstrators’ viewpoints when protecting public officials and the general public during political events. Additionally, this case will help define the parameters of the Court’s previous Iqbal ruling. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

In 2000, California state prisoner Viet Mike Ngo was placed in administrative segregation for alleged misconduct. Following his release, he was prevented from taking part in certain programs deemed critical for parole eligibility. Ngo submitted a formal grievance that was time-barred by the Appeals Coordinator because it was not filed within the requisite 15 working days after the event. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), prisoners are prevented from filing suit until administrative remedies are exhausted. The District Court ruled that Ngo failed to exhaust his remedies under PLRA and was therefore precluded from seeking federal relief. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, holding that Ngo exhausted all remedies as required by the PLRA. The Supreme Court will address whether an untimely administrative appeal satisfies this exhaustion requirement under PLRA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

In 2003, the Idaho state legislature passed the Voluntary Contributions Act, which prevents state political subdivisions from making payroll deductions for political activities. The Pocatello Education Association and other organizations challenged the constitutionality of the statute, arguing that it impermissibly burdens free speech. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found the state does not exercise sufficient control of local governments to allow it to regulate speech through its systems. It therefore found the statute unconstitutional. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether a state exercises sufficient control over local governments to allow it to regulate speech through their systems. This decision will impact whether the Court evaluates state government regulations of local governments using strict scrutiny or a “reasonableness” standard of review.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether requiring objecting religious non-profit organizations to sign a waiver allowing employees to receive health coverage, including contraception and abortion-inducing drugs from third parties, violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). Petitioners, a group of Catholic non-profits (the “Catholic groups”), argue that the requirement forces them to offer health coverage to their employees in a manner inconsistent with the Catholic groups’ faith. The Catholic groups further argue that the requirement has been imposed without proof that the mandated coverage cannot be achieved through alternative means. Sylvia Burwell, the secretary of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, counter that the objections of these religious organizations are not a cognizable burden under RFRA. Furthermore, their refusing to sign the waiver will frustrate the government’s compelling interest in protecting the health of all women, including female employees of Catholic groups. This decision could expand the religious exemption to the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, and will further define the limits of the First Amendment protections afforded under RFRA. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources