Nevada Comm. on Ethics v. Carrigan
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|10-568||Nevada Supreme Court||
Apr 27, 2011
|Jun 13, 2011||9-0||Scalia||OT 2010|
Disclosure: John Elwood, a regular contributor to the blog, serves as counsel to the petitioner. Although Amy Howe, the editor of the blog, served as a judge on one of Johnâ€™s moots before the argument, Goldstein, Howe, & Russell was not otherwise involved in the case.
Holding: The Nevada Ethics in Government Law, which prohibits a legislator who has a conflict of interest from both voting on a proposal and from advocating its passage or failure, is not unconstitutionally overbroad.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia on June 13, 2011. Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
- This week at the Court: In Plain English
- Opinion analysis: Legislator's vote not free speech
- Argument recap: Scalia guarding the slope
- Argument preview: Ethics on the City Council
Briefs and Documents
- Brief of Petitioner Nevada Commission on Ethics
- Brief for Respondent Michael A. Carrigan
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Nevada Commission on Ethics
- Brief for the States of Florida, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Public Citizen, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Nevada Legislature in Support of Reversal
- Brief for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Student Press Law Center and 14 other News Organizations in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the James Madison Center and the Center for Competitive Politics in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the International Municipal Lawyers Association in Support of Respondent