October Term 2014 · Docket 13-1499
Can Florida ban judicial candidates from soliciting campaign funds?
Florida punished a judge for soliciting lawful campaign funds. She argues this violates the First Amendment.
Verified source milestones
- — 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
Andrew Pincus argued Florida punished lawful campaign speech.
He stated the First Amendment bars prohibiting that speech.
Richard argued Florida law allows candidates to provide donor names.
He stated this action does not violate judicial ethics canons.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-17
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests if judicial ethics rules can override free speech rights for candidates.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-5
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 20, 2015.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the punishment struck down as unconstitutional.
The Florida Bar wants the punishment upheld to protect judicial dignity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-5
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the First Amendment bars banning lawful speech.
The Florida Bar argues judicial ethics require restricting candidate conduct.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-5
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked if a tablet note counts as written or oral.
Justice Scalia asked for the three specific interests at issue in the case.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-17
Why it matters
The outcome defines the boundary between judicial ethics and free speech rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-5
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 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-17
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 25, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-5
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.