October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1806
Can states limit charitable fundraising fees?
Illinois seeks to cap fundraising costs. Telemarketing Associates argues this violates free speech.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — 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.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Clement argued the government can protect the public from fraud.
Mr. Huszagh stated charitable solicitors cannot commit fraud freely.
Mr. Copilevitz argued fundraising costs reflect protected persuasive speech.
Mr. Huszagh corrected the record regarding the affidavit treatment.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 9-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 9-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 7-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Illis argues the state can regulate fundraising fees to prevent fraud. Telemarketing Associates claims this restricts protected speech.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 9-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 9-5
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 3, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 7-9
What each side wants
Illinois wants to enforce the fundraising fee cap.
Telemarketing Associates wants the fee cap struck down.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 9-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 9-5
What each side says
Illinois argues the state can regulate fees to stop fraud.
Telemarketing Associates argues fee limits restrict protected speech.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 9-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 9-5
What the justices asked
Does the First Amendment protect fundraising fee structures?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 7-9
Why it matters
This case defines state power over charitable fundraising costs. It shapes how charities manage their budgets.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 9-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 9-5
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 Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 7-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 9-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 9-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 9-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 9-5
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.