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
Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Michael A. Carrigan concerns whether Nevada’s recusal statute violates a legislator’s free‑speech rights.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Nevada Commission on Ethics)
According to John P. Elwood, recusal laws are neutral and do not abridge free speech because a legislator’s vote is a state power, not protected speech.
Respondent (Michael A. Carrigan)
According to Mr. Rosenkranz, the judiciary should not engage in political activity.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Kennedy, do you -- DO you agree with me?
According to Justice Scalia, mr. Elwood, why is that extraordinary? Why aren't you willing to accept that? ... do we review that?
According to Justice Breyer, oh, so you're saying that the difference is that we're judges?
According to Justice Sotomayor, did you argue associational rights below?
What the Court decided
Why it matters
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.
- bd60601dea442f7a06e8-r1-4deaa1b096d72019.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.