October Term 2001 · Docket 01-521

Can Minnesota ban judicial candidates from stating how they would decide cases?

Minnesota bans judicial candidates from stating how they would decide cases. the sides that brought the case argue this rule violates free speech rights.

Official caption
Republican Party of Minn. v. White
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Bopp argued the rule restricts candidate speech.

    Mr. Gilbert clarified the construed rule's meaning.

    Mr. Bopp noted the state brief used two formulations.

    Mr. Gilbert described the state's advisory opinion process.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Minnesota restricts judicial candidates' speech. the sides that brought the case claim this rule violates the First Amendment. the opposing sides defend the state's interest in judicial impartiality.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 26, 2002.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down the Minnesota rule.

the opposing sides want the Court to uphold the Minnesota rule.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the rule denies voters necessary information.

the opposing sides argue the rule protects judicial impartiality.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Does the rule unconstitutionally restrict candidate speech?

How does the rule define prohibited statements?

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The case defines the scope of free speech for judicial candidates. It balances voter information against judicial impartiality. The outcome shapes election rules nationwide.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON