Neil Randall, et al. v. William H. Sorrell et al. (548 U.S. 230)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 26, 2006 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 548 U.S. 230 · 126 S. Ct. 2479
- Decided
- June 26, 2006
- Term
- October Term 2005
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
- Constitutional ruling
- State/territorial law held unconstitutional
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice joins, and in which Justice Alito joins except as to Parts II-B-1 and II-B-2. We here consider the constitutionality of a Vermont campaign finance statute that limits both (1) the amounts that candidates for state office may spend on their campaigns (expenditure limitations) and (2) the amounts that individuals, organizations, and political parties may contribute to those campaigns (contribution limitations). Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17, § 2801 et seq. (2002). We hold that both sets of limitations are inconsistent with the First Amendment. Well-established precedent makes clear that the expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 54-58 (1976) (per curiam). The contribution limits are unconstitutional because in their specific details (involving low maximum levels and other restrictions) they fail to satisfy the First Amendment’s requirement of careful tailoring. Id., at 25-30. That is to say, they impose burdens upon First Amendment interests that (when viewed in light of the statute’s legitimate objectives) are disproportionately severe. I A Prior to 1997, Vermont’s campaign finance law imposed no limit upon the amount a candidate for state office could spend. It did, however, impose limits upon the amounts that individuals, corporations, and…
Excerpt of a 53,539-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.