Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan

Last updated
Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 27, 2011
Decided June 13, 2011
Full case nameNevada Commission on Ethics, Petitioner v. Michael A. Carrigan
Docket no. 10-568
Citations564 U.S. 117 ( more )
131 S. Ct. 2343; 180 L. Ed. 2d 150
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Holding
The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceKennedy
ConcurrenceAlito (in part)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, 564 U.S. 117 (2011), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held that the Nevada Ethics in Government Law, which required government officials recuse in cases involving a conflict of interest, is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Specifically, the law requires government officials to recuse themselves from advocating for and voting on the passage of legislation if private commitments to the interests of others materially affect the official's judgment. Under the terms of this law, the Nevada Commission on Ethics censured city councilman Michael Carrigan for voting on a land project for which his campaign manager was a paid consultant. Carrigan challenged his censure in court and the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in his favor, claiming that casting his vote was protected speech. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that voting by a public official on a public matter is not First Amendment speech.

Contents

Background

Sparks, Nevada, where Michael Carrigan was elected City Councilman Washoe County Nevada Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Sparks Highlighted.svg
Sparks, Nevada, where Michael Carrigan was elected City Councilman

Nevada's Ethics in Government Law

Nevada's Ethics in Government law states 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 the public officer’s situation would be materially affected by... the public officer’s commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others." [1] The law further defines commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others as "a commitment to a person who is a member of the public officer’s or employee’s household; is related to the public officer or employee by blood, adoption or marriage within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity; employs the public officer or employee or a member of the public officer’s or employee’s household; whom the public officer or employee has a substantial and continuing business relationship; or any other commitment or relationship that is substantially similar to a commitment or relationship described." [2]

Investigation of Michael Carrigan

The Nevada Commission on Ethics, the body responsible for administering and enforcing the Ethics in Government law, opened an investigation into Michael Carrigan. [3] In 2007, the Commission found that Michael Carrigan, an elected member of the City Council of Sparks, Nevada, had violated the law for not abstaining from voting on a hotel/casino project known as the Lazy 8 project. [4] The Commission held that Carrigan's relationship with Carlos Vasquez—Carrigan's friend, former political advisor, and a paid consultant on the Lazy 8 project—was significant enough to warrant recusal under the ethics law. [5] However, the Commission found that Carrigan's violation was not willful [6] and that Carrigan did not use his position to secure or grant unwarranted privileges for Vasquez. [7] Carrigan petitioned for judicial review of the decision, which was denied by a district court but granted by the Supreme Court of Nevada. [8]

Nevada Supreme Court Ruling

In 2010, a majority of the Nevada Supreme Court held that voting by public officers on public issues is protected speech under the First Amendment and that the ethics law was unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. [9] The dissent argued that there was no previous decision that held that a public official voting was core political speech. [10] The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in January 2011. [11]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion for the Court. Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion for the Court.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court, which reversed the Supreme Court of Nevada, holding that the Ethics Act did not violate the First Amendment. Scalia wrote, "a 'universal and long-established' tradition of prohibiting certain conduct creates a strong presumption that the prohibition is constitutional" [12] (citing Republican Party of Minnesota v. White ) and that "the Nevada Supreme Court and Carrigan have not cited a single decision invalidating a generally applicable conflict-of-interest recusal rule-- and such rules and have been commonplace for over 200 years". [13] The Court held that the Nevada Supreme Court's belief that recusal rules violate legislators' First Amendment rights is inconsistent with long-standing traditions of Congress, [14] the judiciary, [15] and the States. [16]

Further, the Court found that a legislator's vote is representative of the legislator's power, but rather belongs to the legislator's constituents. [17] Therefore, restrictions on legislators' voting cannot infringe on the legislator's individual right to speech. The Court held that even if a vote could express personal views, the ethics law would still not be a violation of Carrigan's First Amendment rights because "this Court has rejected the notion that the First Amendment confers a right to use governmental mechanics to convey a message." [18]

Kennedy's Concurrence

In his concurrence, Justice Kennedy voiced concern that the ethics law had vague language [19] and was an invitation for selective enforcement. [20] Kennedy joined the Court's opinion because "the act of casting an official vote is not itself protected by the Speech Clause of the First Amendment", [21] however he noted that "as the Court observes, however, the question whether Nevada’s recusal statute was applied in a manner that burdens the First Amendment freedoms discussed above is not presented in this case". [22] The Court did not consider the issue because such an argument was not raised in the Nevada Supreme Court case or Carrigan's brief in opposition to the writ of certiorari. [23]

Alito's Concurrence

Justice Alito concurred in part and concurred in judgment. [24] Alito disagreed with the Court in finding that restrictions upon legislators' voting are not restrictions upon legislators' speech. [25] Alito argued that "the act of voting is not drained of its expressive content when the vote has a legal effect". [26] Despite disagreement on whether legislators' voting constitutes speech, Alito concurred in judgement based on the Court's arguments that legislative recusal laws have historically been long standing and not overturned. [27]

Notes

  1. ↑ §281A.420(3)
  2. ↑ §281A.420(8)(a)-(e)
  3. ↑ §281A.280(1)
  4. ↑ "Councilman Carrigan violated NRS 281.501, subsection 2, by not abstaining from voting on the Lazy 8 matter at the August 23, 2006 Council meeting." p. 5
  5. ↑ "The independence of judgement of a reasonable person in Councilman Carrigan's position would be affected by the commitment and relationship Councilman Carrigan shares with Mr. Vasquez. Therefore, the Commission ruled that during the August 23, 2006 Council meeting, when the Lazy 8 matter was heard, Councilman Carrigan had a commitment in a private capacity to the interest of Mr. Vasquez" p. 8
  6. ↑ "Councilman Carrigan's violation… was not willful" p. 5
  7. ↑ "[Councilman Carrigan] did not use his position in the government to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages for Carlos Vasquez" p. 4
  8. ↑ "Appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review… reversed." Opinion p. 1
  9. ↑ "we first conclude that voting by public officers on public issues is protected speech under the First Amendment… we conclude that NRS 281A.420(8)(e) is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment" Opinion p. 3
  10. ↑ "Before today, no published decision has held that an elected local official engages in core political speech when he or she votes" Dissent p. 1
  11. ↑ "Petition GRANTED." Entry for Jan 7 2011
  12. ↑ p. 4
  13. ↑ p. 4
  14. ↑ "Within 15 years of the founding, both the House of Representatives and the Senate adopted recusal rules. " p. 4
  15. ↑ "Federal conflict-of-interest rules applicable to judges also date back to the founding." p. 5
  16. ↑ "The Nevada Supreme Court’s belief that recusal rules violate legislators’ First Amendment rights is also inconsistent with long-standing traditions in the States". p. 6
  17. ↑ "The answer is that a legislator’s vote is the commitment of his apportioned share of the legislature’s power to the passage or defeat of a particular proposal. The legislative power thus committed is not personal to the legislator but belongs to the people; the legislator has no personal right to it." p. 8
  18. ↑ p. 9
  19. ↑ "The application of the statute’s language to the case just supposed, and to any number of variations on the supposition, is not apparent." p. 3
  20. ↑ " A statute of this sort is an invitation to selective enforcement" p. 3
  21. ↑ p. 1
  22. ↑ p. 4
  23. ↑ "Carrigan raises two additional arguments in his brief: that Nevada’s catchall provision unconstitutionally burdens the right of association of officials and supporters, and that the provision is unconstitutionally vague. Whatever the merits of these arguments, we have no occasion to consider them. Neither was decided below: The Nevada Supreme Court made no mention of the former argument and said that it need not address the latter given its resolution of the overbreadth challenge... Nor was either argument raised in Carrigan’s brief in opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari. Arguments thus omitted are normally considered waived" p. 11
  24. ↑ "JUSTICE ALITO, "concurring in part and concurring in the judgment" p. 1
  25. ↑ "I concur in the judgment, but I do not agree with the opinion of the Court insofar as it suggests that restrictions upon legislators’ voting are not restrictions upon legislators’ speech." p. 1
  26. ↑ p. 3
  27. ↑ "In Part III of its opinion, the Court demonstrates that legislative recusal rules were not regarded during the founding era as impermissible restrictions on freedom of speech. On that basis, I agree that the judgment below must be reversed." p. 3

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samuel Alito</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2006 (born 1950)

Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on October 31, 2005, and has served since January 31, 2006. After Antonin Scalia, he is the second Italian American justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court and the eleventh Catholic.

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the suspension of a high school student who delivered a sexually suggestive speech at a school assembly. The case involved free speech in public schools.

Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.

Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the constitutionality of a particular method of lethal injection used for capital punishment.

Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 554 U.S. 724 (2008), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that section 319 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 unconstitutionally infringed on candidates' rights as provided by First Amendment.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. The case extended the Supreme Court's prior decisions on criminal defendants' Sixth Amendment right to counsel to immigration consequences.

Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires judges to recuse themselves not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."

The Nevada Commission on Ethics is a commission that investigates ethics violations by government officials or employees in the state of Nevada in the United States. It has jurisdiction over public officers and employees at the state, county, and city levels of government, as well as various other political subdivisions. The Commission consists of eight members appointed for four-year terms.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Ohio statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech. In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court found that the First Amendment protects the decision of an author to remain anonymous.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.

McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving a First Amendment challenge to the validity of a Massachusetts law establishing 35-foot (11 m) fixed buffer zones around facilities where abortions were performed.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously vacated a Massachusetts conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James C. Ho</span> American judge (born 1973)

James Chiun-Yue Ho is a Taiwanese-born American attorney and jurist. He was nominated to serve as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by President Donald Trump, and took office in 2018. Ho formerly served as Solicitor General of Texas from 2008 to 2010.

Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18–302, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a Supreme Court of the United States case related to the registration of trademarks under the Lanham Act. It decided 6–3 that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks of "immoral" or "scandalous" matter is unconstitutional by permitting the United States Patent & Trademark Office to engage in viewpoint discrimination, which violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the separation of church and state related to maintaining the Peace Cross, a World War I memorial shaped after a Latin cross, on government-owned land, though initially built in 1925 with private funds on private lands. The case was a consolidation of two petitions to the court, that of The American Legion who built the cross, and of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission who own the land and maintain the memorial. Both petitions challenged the Fourth Circuit's ruling that, regardless of the secular purpose the cross was built for in honoring the deceased soldiers, the cross emboldened a religious symbol and had ordered it altered or razed. The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's ruling in a 7–2 decision, determining that since the Cross had stood for decades without controversy, it did not violate the Establishment Clause and could remain standing.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.