Randall v. Sorrell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Randall v. Sorrell

Argued February 28, 2006
Decided June 26, 2006


Full case name:	Neil Randall, et al. v. William H. Sorrell, et al.

Docket #:	04-1528; 04-1530; 04-1697

Citations:	548 U.S. ___; 126 S. Ct. 2479; 165 L. Ed. 2d 482; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 5161; 74 U.S.L.W. 4435; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 354

Prior history:	Judgment for defendant, sub nom. Landell v. Sorrell, 118 F.Supp.2d 459 (D. Vt. 2001); affirmed in part, vacated in part, 382 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2002); rehearing denied, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5884 (2d Cir. Apr. 11, 2005); amended, 406 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2005); cert. granted, sub nom. Randall v. Sorrell, 126 S.Ct. 35 (2005)

Holding

Vermont's campaign finance restrictions violated the First Amendment. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.

Court membership

Chief Justice: John Roberts
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito

Case opinions

Plurality by: Breyer
Joined by: Roberts; Alito (only parts I, II-B-3, III, IV)
Concurrence by: Kennedy
Concurrence by: Thomas
Joined by: Scalia
Concurrence by: Alito
Dissent by: Stevens
Dissent by: Souter
Joined by: Ginsberg; Stevens (only parts II, III)

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. I

Randall v. Sorrell, 04-1528, 04-1530 and 04-1697, is a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with a Vermont law which placed a cap on financial donations made to politicians. The court ruled that Vermont's law, the strictest in the nation, unconstitutionally hindered the citizens' First Amendment right to free speech. A key issue in the case was the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo, which many justices felt needed to be revisited.

[edit] Issue

The 6-3 ruling dealt with three individual issues before the court.^[1]

Did Vermont's law violate the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, or the Supreme Court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo?
Did Vermont violate the right of independent expenditures of political parties in accordance with the aforementioned amendments and the Supreme Court ruling in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC?
Did Vermont's contribution limits, which are the lowest in the country, which allow only a single maximum contribution over a two-year election cycle, and which prohibit state political parties from contributing more than $400 to their gubernatorial candidate, fall below an acceptable constitutional threshold and should be struck down?

The case, which failed in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, was granted certiorari on September 27, 2005.