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 Petitioner, the Delaware constitution complies with the First Amendment.
The respondent warns that accepting the petitioner’s premise would end the idea of an independent judiciary.
Background and question before the Court
The Court is considering whether a state may require judges to belong to one of the major political parties.
What each side argues
Petitioner (John C. Carney, Governor of Delaware)
According to Petitioner, the Delaware constitution complies with the First Amendment.
According to Petitioner, limitations on First Amendment rights for public service, such as the Hatch Act, have been upheld and are analogous to the present issue.
Respondent (James R. Adams)
According to Respondent, accepting the petitioner’s premise would end the idea of an independent judiciary.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts introduced the case as Number 19-309, John Carney v. James Adams.
Justice Thomas asked whether Delaware could require all judges to be members of one of the major parties.
Justice Thomas asked whether the issue is a constitutional provision or a long‑standing tradition or practice.
Justice Alito asked what minimum allegations James Adams would need to make to have standing.
Justice Gorsuch asked for analogues regarding the major‑party requirement for judges.
Justice Kavanaugh asked whether a state could allow only independents to serve as judges.
Justice Alito asked whether the request for an injunction had been withdrawn.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor noted that at least three rights are at issue in the case.
- [1] b310fdd32afa55c4bfe2-r1-a3650e846e2e5cab.pdf, p. 4
- [2] b310fdd32afa55c4bfe2-r1-a3650e846e2e5cab.pdf, p. 9
- [3] b310fdd32afa55c4bfe2-r1-a3650e846e2e5cab.pdf, p. 10
- [4] b310fdd32afa55c4bfe2-r1-a3650e846e2e5cab.pdf, p. 14
- [5] b310fdd32afa55c4bfe2-r1-a3650e846e2e5cab.pdf, p. 23
- [6] b310fdd32afa55c4bfe2-r1-a3650e846e2e5cab.pdf, p. 27
- [7] b310fdd32afa55c4bfe2-r1-a3650e846e2e5cab.pdf, p. 44
- [8] b310fdd32afa55c4bfe2-r1-a3650e846e2e5cab.pdf, p. 46
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Petitioner, the case could clarify how far First Amendment limitations on public officials can extend, building on precedents such as the Hatch Act.
The outcome could affect the independence of the judiciary by addressing whether states may impose partisan requirements on judges.
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.
- b310fdd32afa55c4bfe2-r1-a3650e846e2e5cab.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.