Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar
135 S. Ct. 1656
| SCOTUS | 2015Background
- Naomi Yulee, a judicial candidate in Florida, sent a personal fundraising solicitation; the Florida Supreme Court disciplined her under Canon 7C(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, which bans personal solicitation of campaign funds by judicial candidates.
- Yulee challenged the Canon as a content-based restriction on political speech under the First Amendment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a State may bar a judicial candidate from personally soliciting campaign contributions.
- The Court treated the rule as a content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny: the State must show a compelling interest and narrow tailoring.
- The majority upheld Canon 7C(1), concluding Florida has a compelling interest in preserving public confidence in judicial integrity and that the personal-solicitation ban is narrowly tailored to that interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Canon 7C(1) is a permissible restriction on speech under the First Amendment | Yulee: personal solicitation is political speech; the ban is content-based and not narrowly tailored (both underinclusive and overbroad) | Florida/The Bar: the State has a compelling interest in preserving public confidence in an impartial judiciary; personal solicitation uniquely threatens that interest | Upheld: the Court held the Canon survives strict scrutiny — compelling interest + narrow tailoring |
| Whether allowing committee solicitation and thank-you notes renders the Canon fatally underinclusive | Yulee: permitting committee solicitation and thank-you notes undermines the asserted interest and signals viewpoint or speaker discrimination | Florida: committee solicitation and thank-you notes pose materially different risks; State may target the most threatening conduct | Rejected: majority found these distinctions reasonable and not indicative of pretext |
| Whether less-restrictive alternatives (recusal rules, contribution limits) make the Canon unnecessary | Yulee: recusal and contribution limits are less restrictive means to prevent bias/appearance of bias | Florida: recusal and limits are inadequate or create perverse incentives; the appearance problem persists regardless of amounts | Rejected: majority held those alternatives insufficient to negate narrow tailoring |
| Scope/tailoring: must the ban be limited to lawyers/litigants or directed solicitations? | Yulee: the Canon sweeps too broadly (applies to solicitations to persons who could never appear before the judge and to mass solicitations) | Florida: the appearance-of-impropriety interest can be implicated by personal solicitations broadly; precise line-drawing is unworkable; law need not be perfectly tailored | Rejected: majority concluded a categorical ban on personal solicitation is narrowly tailored enough given the intangible, appearance-based interest |
Key Cases Cited
- McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (overruled in part on other grounds) (analysis of solicitation restrictions in campaign finance context)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (campaign-finance limits and independent expenditures)
- Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) (strict-scrutiny upholding of targeted speech restriction near polling places)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (narrowly tailored restrictions can survive strict scrutiny in certain contexts)
- White (Republican Party of Minn. v. White), 536 U.S. 765 (2002) (First Amendment limits on judicial-candidate speech; distinguishes judges from politicians)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (state interest in public confidence in judicial integrity)
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (underinclusiveness and pretext in laws targeting conduct)
- Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979) (underinclusiveness undermining asserted governmental purpose)
- R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (limitations on underinclusiveness as independent test)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (campaign finance principles distinguishing contribution vs. expenditure regulation)
- Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954) (appearance of justice doctrine)
- Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) (risk that financial interest or solicitations create temptation and appear to bias adjudication)