Blog
Public officials’ votes are not protected speech, Supreme Court rules
- By: ASNE staff
- On: 06/23/2011 17:06:00
- In: Amicus briefs
ASNE was on the winning side in a Supreme Court case with wide-ranging implications that was decided last week. Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan focused on the validity of Nevada's statute governing the recusal of government officials who may have a conflict of interest in voting on an issue.
ASNE was on the winning side in a Supreme Court case with wide-ranging implications that was decided last week. Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan
focused on the validity of Nevada's statute governing the recusal of government officials who may have a conflict of interest in voting on an issue. Michael Carrigan, a Sparks, Nev., city council member, was censured by the commission for voting on a matter in which he had a conflict. He challenged the law, arguing that it unduly restricts legislators' free speech rights. ASNE joined the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Student Press Law Center and 13 other organizations on an amicus brief contending that a government official's votes are not protected speech. The brief argued that ruling for Carrigan would threaten state and federal freedom of information and open-meetings laws around the country, by opening the floodgates to challenges under similar First Amendment theories. Thankfully, Justice Antonin Scalia agreed that public officials' votes are “a core legislative function,” not protected free speech.