This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to James Bopp, Jr. (Petitioner), the petitioner, represented by James Bopp, Jr., argues that the Announce Clause bars judicial candidates from pledging how they would decide a case or issue.
The respondent, represented by Gilbert, contends that the clause merely restricts candidates from publicly stating how they would decide issues likely to come before them as judges.
Background and question before the Court
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked whether the Announce Clause prohibits anything that the Pledges and Promises Clause does not already prohibit.
A Justice asked whether the petitioners’ goal was to restrict speech and, if so, why that would be unconstitutional.
According to Justice, a Justice clarified that the term “commit” should be understood in its ordinary sense and not stretched beyond the words themselves.
According to Justice, a Justice inquired whether advisory opinions could be used in First Amendment contexts, noting that such a practice may be unprecedented.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Republican Party of Minnesota)
According to James Bopp, Jr. (Petitioner), the petitioner argues that the Announce Clause applies to statements about how a judicial candidate would decide cases, not merely the outcomes.
According to James Bopp, Jr., on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner contends that the State’s own formulations of the rule are inconsistent, making the scope of the Announce Clause unclear.
According to James Bopp, Jr., on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner maintains that the Announce Clause chills speech protected by the First Amendment, because voters need information about candidates’ views to make informed choices.
Respondent (Verna Kelly)
According to GILBERT, the respondent argues that the Announce Clause merely prevents judicial candidates from publicly announcing how they would decide issues that may come before them.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, during oral argument, the Court asked the parties to clarify the scope of the Announce Clause and its relationship to the Pledges and Promises Clause.
According to James Bopp, Jr., on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner responded that the State’s rule is ambiguous and that the Announce Clause restricts speech necessary for voters to evaluate judicial candidates.
According to GILBERT, the respondent reiterated that the clause only limits candidates from announcing how they would decide future cases.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to James Bopp, Jr., on behalf of the petitioners, the case addresses whether restrictions on judicial candidates’ speech about how they would decide cases violate the First Amendment.
According to James Bopp, Jr., on behalf of the petitioners, the issue also implicates the public’s interest in an impartial judiciary and the need for voters to have information about candidates’ viewpoints.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 6d63ad026b62e756ec29-r1-52180c45b950d77a.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.