Nevada Commission on Ethics, Petitioner v. Michael A. Carrigan (564 U.S. 117)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 13, 2011 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 564 U.S. 117 · 131 S. Ct. 2343
- Decided
- June 13, 2011
- Term
- October Term 2010
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. The Nevada Supreme Court invalidated a recusal provision of the State’s Ethics in Government Law as unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. We consider whether legislators have a personal, First Amendment right to vote on any given matter. I Nevada’s Ethics in Government Law provides that a public, officer shall not vote upon or advocate the passage or failure of, but may otherwise participate in the consideration of, a matter with respect to which the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in his situation would be materially affected by,” inter alia, “[h]is commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 281A.420(2) (2007). Section 28lA.420(8)(a)-(d) of the law defines the term “commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others” to mean a “commitment to a person” who is a member of the officer's household; is related by blood, adoption, or marriage to the officer; employs the officer or a member of his household; or has a substantial and continuing business relationship with the officer. Paragraph (e) of the same subsection adds a catchall to that definition: “[a]ny other commitment or relationship that is substantially similar” to one of those listed in paragraphs (a)-(d). The Ethics in Government Law is administered and enforced by the petitioner…
Excerpt of a 20,060-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.