Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Case Challenging Florida Rule Banning Personal Solicitation by Judicial Candidates

The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral argument in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, a First Amendment challenge to a Florida rule that helps keep courts impartial by prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions.

In December, Lambda Legal and six other advocacy organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case urging the Supreme Court to reject the petitioner’s claim and uphold Florida’s rule banning direct solicitation by judicial candidates in order to protect against the appearance of judicial bias and maintain the public’s confidence in the fairness of the courts.

Eric Lesh, Fair Courts Project Manager at Lambda Legal, said:

Spending in judicial elections is skyrocketing with more that $54 million spent during the 2011-12 election cycle alone. This flood of money has dramatically altered the politics of judicial races, blurring the line that separates justice from politics. The stakes in this case are high with our due process rights at risk. Judges have a responsibility to render decisions based on the law and a firm commitment to the Constitution’s core principles of equality and fairness.  Florida, and the 39 other states that elect their judges, must be allowed to place reasonable restrictions on how these candidates raise money in order to guard against a perception among the public that justice is for sale.

In 2009, Lanell Williams-Yulee signed a letter seeking campaign contributions in her unsuccessful run for Hillsborough County Judge. The Florida Supreme Court found this to be a violation of Canon 7C(1) (the “solicitation clause”) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that a candidate “for a judicial office that is filled by public election between competing candidates shall not personally solicit campaign funds.” Williams-Yulee challenged the reprimand, alleging that the rule infringed on her constitutionally protected right to free speech. The Florida Supreme Court rejected that argument, leading to this Supreme Court appeal by Williams-Yulee.

Lambda Legal and the other organizations argue that Florida has a compelling interest in promoting the appearance and reality of an impartial judiciary and that the Florida rule imposes a minor restriction on judicial candidates. When judges personally solicit campaign funds it creates the perception that they may favor a particular contributor in a future case or disfavor lawyers and litigants who choose not to contribute or are not solicited. The statute protects the public’s confidence in the judiciary without infringing on a candidate’s ability either to discuss her qualifications or raise necessary campaign funds.

Lambda Legal’s Fair Courts Project works to preserve judicial independence and improve access to justice for all people. The success of Lambda Legal’s work in the courts depends on the assurance that our clients will receive a fair and impartial hearing. Lambda Legal joined this brief with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; Justice at Stake; Campaign Legal Center; Common Cause; Center for Media and Democracy; and Demos.

Read the press release.