Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar

**Question presented** Do state rules that forbid a judicial candidate from personally asking people for campaign money violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech? **Holding** The U.S. Supreme Court said “no.” It affirmed the Florida Bar’s discipline of Lanell Williams‑Yulee, holding that Florida’s prohibition on personal solicitation of campaign contributions by judicial candidates is a constitutional limitation on speech. **Why the Court reached that result** The Court said the state has a *compelling* (very important) interest in keeping the public’s confidence that judges will be fair and independent. When a judge or a judge‑candidate personally asks someone for money, the public may suspect the judge could later be biased toward that donor. Because judges do not have the same political role as legislators or executives, the usual free‑speech rules that apply to ordinary elections are not as strong here. The rule in Florida’s Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 7C(1)) is *narrowly tailored*: it only bans the candidate’s own direct requests for money, while still allowing a campaign committee to raise funds, allowing the candidate to speak about issues, and even allowing thank‑you notes. Because the restriction is limited to that small slice of speech and serves the important interest in judicial integrity, the Court said it satisfies the strict‑scrutiny test that the First Amendment requires for such restrictions. **What the dissent said** Four justices (Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito) dissented. They argued that the ban infringes on a candidate’s free‑speech rights and that the state could protect confidence in the courts through less‑restrictive means—such as stricter recusal rules or contribution limits—rather than silencing a candidate’s own fundraising requests. They viewed the rule as overly broad and not the least restrictive way to achieve the state’s goal. **Vote breakdown** - **Majority** (5 justices): Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg (the latter joined the opinion except for Part II). - **Dissent** (4 justices): Justices Scalia (author), Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito. No other justices were involved, as the Court has nine members.