Term: 2010
Docket: 10-568
Nevada Commission On Ethics, Petitioner v. Michael A. Carrigan
- Pro
10-568 NEVADA COMMISSION ON ETHICS V. CARRIGAN DECISION BELOW: 236 P.3d 616 CERT. GRANTED 1/7/2011 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Nevada Supreme Court held that the vote of an elected official is protected speech under the First Amendment and that the recusal provision of the Nevada Ethics in Government Law is subject to strict scrutiny. Under that standard of review, the court concluded that a portion of the recusal statute was overbroad and facially unconstitutional. The question presented is: Whether the First Amendment subjects state restrictions on voting by elected officials to (i) strict scrutiny, as held by the Nevada Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit, (ii) the balancing test of Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), for government-employee speech, as held by the First, Second, and Ninth Circuits, or (iii) rational-basis review, as held by the Seventh and Eighth Circuits. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 51920
The U.S. Supreme Court case Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Michael A. Carrigan, 2010 revolved around the issue of free speech rights for elected officials and conflict-of-interest rules in voting procedures. The respondent, City Councilman Michael Carrigan was censured by the petitioner, Nevada Commission on Ethics because he voted to approve a hotel/casino project while his campaign manager worked as a consultant for the same project's developer. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that legislative vote is not protected under First Amendment right to free speech; thus upholding laws requiring public officials to recuse themselves from votes when they have conflicts of interest.
In the dissenting opinion for Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, Justice Alito argued that the majority's ruling was too broad and could potentially infrive upon First Amendment rights. He contended that while there are legitimate reasons to restrict certain types of speech in order to prevent corruption or bias, these restrictions should be narrowly tailored and carefully scrutinized. In this case, he believed that the law prohibiting an elected official from voting on a matter due to a conflict of interest was overly broad because it did not distinguish between serious conflicts and trivial ones. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how such laws might affect political speech more generally by discouraging politicians from expressing their views openly for fear of potential legal repercussions.
