Anderson v. Miller was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1978. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a state law that required candidates for state office to file a financial disclosure statement. The plaintiffs, Anderson and Miller, were candidates for the Arkansas House of Representatives who refused to file the statement, claiming that it violated their First Amendment right to privacy. The Supreme Court held that the financial disclosure requirement did not violate the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that the disclosure requirement was a reasonable means of promoting the public interest in preventing corruption and promoting public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process. The Court also noted that the disclosure requirement was narrowly tailored to serve the state's interest and did not impose an undue burden on the candidates. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the financial disclosure requirement was constitutional and did not violate the First Amendment. The Court's decision established that states may require candidates for public office to file financial disclosure statements in order to promote the public interest in preventing corruption and promoting public confidence in the electoral process.

In the dissenting opinion for Anderson v. Miller, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of precedent and an incorrect application of First Amendment principles. He noted that while it is true that individuals have a right to express their political views, this does not mean they are entitled to use government resources in order to do so. In his view, allowing public employees such as teachers or police officers to wear campaign buttons would create an unconstitutional endorsement of one candidate over another by the state itself. Furthermore, he argued that there was no evidence presented at trial which demonstrated any actual harm caused by prohibiting these items from being worn in public workplaces; thus making it unnecessary for the court to even consider whether or not such restrictions were constitutional under strict scrutiny standards. Ultimately, Justice Scalia concluded that if states wish to restrict certain forms of expression within their own borders then they should be allowed do so without interference from federal courts unless those restrictions violate some other fundamental right guaranteed by law or constitutionality