Carney v. Adams
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 10, 2020 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- December 10, 2020
- Term
- October Term 2020
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 , 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus CARNEY, GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE v. ADAMS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 19–309. Argued October 5, 2020—Decided December 10, 2020 Delaware’s Constitution contains a political balance requirement for ap- pointments to the State’s major courts. No more than a bare majority of judges on any of its five major courts “shall be of the same political party.” Art. IV, §3. In addition, on three of those courts, those mem- bers not in the bare majority “shall be of the other major political party.” Ibid. Respondent James R. Adams, a Delaware lawyer and political independent, sued in Federal District Court, claiming that Delaware’s “bare majority” and “major party” requirements violate his First Amendment right to freedom of association by making him inel- igible to become a judge unless he joins a major political party. The District Court held that Adams had standing to challenge both require-…
Excerpt of a 31,922-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.