October Term 2010 · Docket 10-568

Does a conflict-of-interest recusal law violate free speech?

Nevada officials argue recusal rules protect integrity. Carrigan claims they punish political association.

Official caption: Nevada Comm'n on Ethics v. Carrigan
Latest argument session: 2011-04-27
Latest official Court activity: 2011-04-27
Latest verified event: Argued
Sources analyzed through: Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

2026-08-29 — 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 · 2011-04-27

What happened at the argument
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.

Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-25 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-43

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

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.