Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar
575 U.S. (2015)
Rule of Law:
A state law prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign funds is narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest of preserving public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and therefore does not violate the First Amendment.
Facts:
- Lanell Williams-Yulee was a candidate for County Court Judge in Hillsborough County, Florida.
- Florida's Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 7C(1), prohibits judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions, though it permits them to raise funds through a committee.
- To raise money for her campaign, Yulee composed and personally signed a mass-mail fundraising letter.
- The letter was also posted on Yulee's campaign website.
- The Florida Bar, the state's lawyer-regulating agency, subsequently filed a complaint against Yulee for this action.
Procedural Posture:
- The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Lanell Williams-Yulee in the Supreme Court of Florida, the court of first instance for attorney discipline.
- Yulee admitted to the conduct but argued that Canon 7C(1) was facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
- A court-appointed referee found Yulee guilty of violating the rule and recommended a public reprimand.
- The Supreme Court of Florida adopted the referee's findings and approved the sanction, holding that the canon was constitutional.
- The United States Supreme Court granted Yulee's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state rule of judicial conduct that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign funds violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No. A state rule prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign funds does not violate the First Amendment. The rule is a content-based restriction on speech subject to strict scrutiny, but it survives this test. The state has a compelling interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, which is distinct from and more significant than the state's interest in regulating legislative or executive elections. The personal solicitation of funds by a judicial candidate creates a unique appearance of impropriety and potential for quid pro quo that undermines this confidence. The rule is narrowly tailored because it targets only the specific conduct of personal solicitation by the candidate, leaving open alternative avenues for fundraising through a committee and for all other forms of campaign speech. It is not fatally underinclusive for permitting committee solicitations, as there is a material difference in public perception between a candidate's personal request and a request from a third party.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
No. Justice Breyer joined the Court's opinion but wrote separately to reiterate his view that the tiers of scrutiny, including strict scrutiny, should be viewed as flexible guidelines rather than rigid, mechanically applied tests.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
No. States should have substantial latitude to regulate judicial elections differently from political elections because judges are not politicians. Unlike political officials, judges are not supposed to be responsive to supporters or favor any party; impartiality is their defining characteristic. Therefore, precedents concerning campaign finance in political elections, such as Citizens United, should have little bearing on judicial elections. The Court is correct to uphold the Florida canon, and a more deferential standard than strict scrutiny would be appropriate for regulations designed to preserve the unique character of judicial office.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
Yes. The Florida rule violates the First Amendment. The majority's application of strict scrutiny is not faithful to the standard; it is 'sleight of hand.' The asserted state interest in 'public confidence in judicial integrity' is ill-defined and molded to fit the outcome. The rule is not narrowly tailored because it bans solicitations to individuals who could never appear before the candidate, such as family members, and it prohibits impersonal mass communications that do not create pressure or an appearance of impropriety. The rule is also fatally underinclusive because it prohibits requests for campaign funds but not for other personal favors (like a loan), revealing that its true purpose is hostility toward judicial campaigning itself, not a concern about the appearance of impropriety.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
Yes. The Court's decision weakens First Amendment protections in the context of elections, a forum where free speech should have its 'fullest and most urgent application.' The ban on personal solicitation censors the candidate's speech and stifles the broader public debate that elections are meant to foster. This restriction wrongly assumes that voters lack the judgment to make informed choices and that judicial elections must be sanitized from the normal dynamics of free speech. The proper remedy for concerns about campaign practices is more speech and greater transparency, not 'enforced silence.'
Dissenting - Justice Alito
Yes. The Florida rule violates the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored. The rule is 'about as narrowly tailored as a burlap bag' because it applies to all forms of solicitation, including mass mailings and newspaper ads, and to requests for any amount of money, even from individuals with no conceivable connection to the judicial system. Upholding such a broad restriction seriously impairs the meaning of narrow tailoring and the protective function of strict scrutiny for core political speech.
Analysis:
This decision is highly significant as it represents a rare instance where a content-based restriction on speech survives strict scrutiny. By differentiating judicial elections from political ones, the Court carved out a special sphere where a state's interest in preserving the appearance of judicial integrity is sufficiently compelling to justify limiting a candidate's core political speech. The ruling solidifies the principle that states have greater leeway to regulate the conduct of judicial campaigns compared to legislative or executive campaigns. It reinforces the idea that the unique role of judges—requiring impartiality and independence—can subordinate First Amendment rights that are otherwise vigorously protected in the political arena.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"