Supreme Court hears final oral arguments for 2010 term

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] Wednesday in Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan [oral argument transcript, PDF; JURIST report] on whether the First Amendment allows states to prevent government officials from voting on matters in which they have or appear to have a personal conflict. The Nevada Supreme Court, citing Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], held [opinion, PDF] that preventing an official from casting such a vote violates the First Amendment because voting by an elected public officer on public issues is protected speech. Counsel for the petitioner, the Nevada Commission on Ethics, argued, "[n]eutral laws requiring official recusal for conflict of interest do not abridge free speech because a legislator's vote, however expressive, is not protected speech. It is, rather, a legally binding exercise of State power that he wields as an incident of public office." Counsel for the respondent, City Councilman Michael Carrigan, argued that a ruling for the petitioner would have a chilling effect on political activity.

 

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.