Find Court Cases > Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan

Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan

Case Date: 04/27/2011
Docket No: none

Facts of the Case 

Nevada law requires elected officials to disqualify themselves when they are asked to vote on matters that touch on ''commitments in a private capacity.'' In 2006, a member of the Sparks City, Nevada Council, Michael A. Carrigan, disclosed that his campaign manager was a consultant to a business seeking to develop a casino, before voting its way in a land-use matter. The Nevada Commission on Ethics later ruled that the vote was improper and censured Carrigan.

The Nevada Supreme Court reversed that decision, saying it violated the First Amendment and citing the Supreme Court's decision last year in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. ''Voting by an elected public officer on public issues is protected speech under the First Amendment, '' Justice Michael Douglas wrote for the majority.

Read the Briefs for this Case
  • Brief for the Petitioner
  • Reply Brief for the Petitioner
  • Brief of Florida, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Pennsylvania, Texas, And Utah as Amici Curiae In Support of the Petitioner
  • Brief Amicus Curiae of the James Madison Center And the Center for Competitive Politics Supporting Respondent
    • Question 

    Does the First Amendment subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny?

    Argument Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan - Oral ArgumentFull Transcript Text  Download MP3Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan - Opinion AnnouncementFull Transcript Text  Download MP3 Conclusion  Decision: 9 votes for Nevada Commission on Ethics, 0 vote(s) against Legal provision: First Amendment

    No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court order in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia. "The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad," Scalia wrote for the unanimous court. Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a concurring opinion in which he noted: "the opinion does not, and on this record should not, consider a free speech contention that would have presented issues of considerable import, were it to have been a proper part of the case." Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito concurred in part and concurred in the judgment, writing: "I concur in the judgment, but I do not agree with the opinion of the Court insofar as it suggests that restrictions upon legislators' voting are not restrictions upon legislators' speech."