{"argument_date":"2011-04-27T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2011-04-27T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2010","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","paragraphs":["Elwood argued a vote is a binding exercise of state power. He said it is not protected speech. He claimed neutral recusal laws do not abridge free speech.","Rosenkranz argued an unelected commission arrogated the right to invalidate elections. He said the law treats core political association as corrupting. He claimed this is the core problem with the statute.","Justice Kennedy questioned the standard of proof. He asked if the Court can answer the certified question. He noted the difficulty of addressing proof without deciding the case. He asked if the Court can send the case back. He questioned if intermediate scrutiny allows chilling speech. He asked if the vagueness objection survives intermediate scrutiny.","Justice Alito questioned the practical application of the standard. He said it is difficult to figure out if a relative's interest affects judgment. He noted the problem with the substantially similar clause. He asked if the rule covers non-relative financial interests. He questioned the scope of the financial interest definition."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 10, lines 19-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 15-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 11, lines 15-31"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 39-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 39-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 7-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-5","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 45-5"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 5-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-19","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 5, lines 9-19"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-19","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 6, lines 15-19"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 6, lines 33-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 8, lines 39-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 8, lines 7-25"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 9, lines 17-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 9, lines 27-43"}]}],"caption":"Nevada Comm'n on Ethics v. Carrigan","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:35.776115Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"Nevada officials argue recusal rules protect integrity. Carrigan claims they punish political association.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 39-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 39-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-3"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2011-04-27T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2010","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/10-568.html","primary_docket":"10-568","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-30T23:54:23.018539Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["Nevada requires officials to recuse themselves from votes affecting their interests. Carrigan challenged this rule. He argued it violates his First Amendment rights. The state argued the rule prevents corruption. The lower court sided with Carrigan. Nevada appealed to the Supreme Court."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 39-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 39-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-3"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 27, 2011."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 7-17"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["Nevada wants the Court to uphold the recusal law. It seeks to allow officials to avoid conflicts of interest.","Carrigan wants the Court to strike down the recusal law. He seeks to protect his right to political association."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 39-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 39-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-3"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["Nevada argues a vote is state power, not speech. It claims recusal rules do not abridge free expression.","Carrigan argues the law treats political association as corrupt. He claims an unelected body cannot invalidate election results."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 39-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 39-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-3"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Justice Kennedy asked if the Court can answer the certified question without deciding the case.","Justice Alito asked how an official determines if a relative's interest affects judgment. He noted the difficulty of the standard. He questioned the scope of the substantially similar clause. He asked if the rule covers non-relative financial interests. He asked if the vagueness objection survives intermediate scrutiny. He asked how the rule applies to civic activists."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 10, lines 19-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 15-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 11, lines 15-31"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 7-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-5","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 45-5"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 5-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-19","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 5, lines 9-19"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-19","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 6, lines 15-19"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 6, lines 33-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 8, lines 39-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 8, lines 7-25"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 9, lines 17-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 9, lines 27-43"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This case defines the boundary between political speech and official duty. It determines how states regulate conflicts of interest. It affects the power of unelected ethics commissions. It shapes the rights of elected officials. It balances government integrity against free expression. It sets a standard for future recusal laws."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 39-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 39-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-3"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 10, lines 19-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 15-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 11, lines 15-31"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 7-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-5","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 45-5"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 4, lines 5-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-19","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 5, lines 9-19"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-19","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 6, lines 15-19"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 6, lines 33-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 8, lines 39-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 8, lines 7-25"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 9, lines 17-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 9, lines 27-43"}]}],"slug":"2010-10-568-nevada-comm-n-on-ethics-v-carrigan","term":"2010","title":"Does a conflict-of-interest recusal law violate free speech?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 39-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 39-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2010/10-568.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-3"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}