From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2006 United States Supreme Court case
Randall v. Sorrell Full case name Neil Randall , et al. v. William H. Sorrell , et al.Docket nos. 04-1528 04-1530 04-1697 Citations 548 U.S. 230 (more 126 S. Ct. 2479; 165
L. Ed. 2d 482; 2006
U.S. LEXIS 5161; 74 U.S.L.W. 4435; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 354
Prior Judgment for defendant, sub nom. Landell v. Sorrell , 118 F.Supp.2d 459 (D. Vt. 2001); affirmed in part, vacated in part, 382 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2002); rehearing denied, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5884 (2d Cir. Apr. 11, 2005); amended, 406 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2005); cert. granted, sub nom. Randall v. Sorrell , 545 U.S. 1165 (2005). Vermont's campaign finance restrictions violated the First Amendment. Second Circuit reversed and remanded.
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · David Souter Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Plurality Breyer, joined by Roberts; Alito (all but Parts II–B–1 and II–B–2) Concurrence Alito (in part) Concurrence Kennedy (in judgment) Concurrence Thomas (in judgment), joined by Scalia Dissent Stevens Dissent Souter, joined by Ginsburg; Stevens (Parts II and III) U.S. Const. amend. I
Randall v. Sorrell Supreme Court of the United States involving a Vermont law which placed a cap on financial donations made to politicians. The court ruled that Vermont's law, the strictest in the nation, unconstitutionally hindered the citizens' First Amendment right to free speech.[ 1] Buckley v. Valeo [ 2]
Opinion of the Court [ edit ] The 6–3 ruling dealt with three individual issues before the court.[ 3]
Did Vermont's law violate the First Amendment , Fourteenth Amendment , following the Supreme Court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo [ 2]
Did Vermont violate the right of political parties to make independent expenditures in accordance with the aforementioned amendments, following the Supreme Court ruling in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC
Did Vermont's contribution limits, which are the lowest in the country, allow only a single maximum contribution over a two-year election cycle, and prohibit state political parties from contributing more than $400 to their gubernatorial candidate, fall below an acceptable constitutional threshold and should be struck down? In Buckley , the Supreme Court had upheld contribution limits on the basis of the government's "compelling interest" in preventing political corruption or its appearance, but had left open the possibility that if limits were set so low as to prevent speakers from effectively presenting their message to the public, such limits might be unconstitutional. The State of Vermont argued that new circumstances and experiences since Buckley v. Valeo was decided in 1976 suggested that the law should be upheld as Constitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled against the state of Vermont on all three issues, reaffirming both Buckley and Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee and striking down the law as unconstitutional.[ 4] Randall is particularly important as the first case in which the Supreme Court has struck down a contribution limit as unconstitutionally low.
Public displays Statutory religious Public funding Religion in Private religious speech Internal church affairs Taxpayer standing Blue laws Other
Unprotected
Incitement sedition Defamation andfalse speech Fighting words andheckler's veto True threats Obscenity
Rosen v. United States United States v. One Book Called Ulysses Roth v. United States One, Inc. v. Olesen Smith v. California Marcus v. Search Warrant MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day Jacobellis v. Ohio Quantity of Books v. Kansas Ginzburg v. United States Memoirs v. Massachusetts Redrup v. New York Ginsberg v. New York Stanley v. Georgia United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs Kois v. Wisconsin Miller v. California Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film Jenkins v. Georgia Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut People v. Freeman United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. Reno v. ACLU United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. Ashcroft v. ACLU I United States v. American Library Ass'n Ashcroft v. ACLU II Nitke v. Gonzales United States v. Williams American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland United States v. Kilbride United States v. Stevens Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton Speech integral
Strict scrutiny Overbreadth Vagueness Symbolic speech Content-based Content-neutral
Compelled speech Compelled subsidy
Government grants Government Loyalty oaths School speech Public employees Hatch Act andLicensing and Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations Lehman v. Shaker Heights Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar Bigelow v. Virginia Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro Carey v. Population Services International Bates v. State Bar of Arizona In re Primus Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association Friedman v. Rogers Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego In re R.M.J. Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind State University of New York v. Fox Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network Edenfield v. Fane United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. United States v. United Foods Inc. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly Thompson v. Western States Medical Center Nike, Inc. v. Kasky Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman Matal v. Tam Iancu v. Brunetti Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Vidal v. Elster Campaign finance Anonymous speech State action Official retaliation Boycotts Prisons
Organizations Future Conduct Solicitation Membership restriction Primaries and elections
This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
