The Supreme Court case Republican Party of Minnesota v. Suzanne White, Chairperson, Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards (2001) revolved around the constitutionality of a clause in the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct that prohibited judicial candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues. The Republican Party challenged this "announce clause," arguing it violated their First Amendment rights to free speech. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republican Party and struck down the announce clause as unconstitutional. The court held that while states have an interest in maintaining impartiality within their judiciary system, they cannot infringe upon individuals' freedom to express themselves on disputed matters under law or policy.

In the dissenting opinion for Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, Justice Ginsburg argued that states have a compelling interest in maintaining an impartial judiciary and preserving public confidence in the judicial system. She contended that these interests justify restrictions on what candidates for judicial office can say during their campaigns. According to her, allowing judges to make promises about how they will decide future cases undermines their role as neutral arbiters of the law and could lead people to believe that justice is for sale. Furthermore, she expressed concern that removing restrictions would turn judicial elections into partisan battles, which could further erode trust in the courts. Therefore, she disagreed with the majority's decision striking down Minnesota's rule prohibiting candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues.