Randall v. Sorrell
| 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 nos. |
04-1528 04-1530 04-1697 |
| Citations | 548 U.S. 230 (more)
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 | |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Breyer, joined by Roberts; Alito (only parts I, II-B-3, III, IV) |
| Concurrence | Kennedy |
| Concurrence | Thomas, joined by Scalia |
| Concurrence | Alito |
| Dissent | Souter, joined by Ginsburg; Stevens (only parts II, III) |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving 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.
The 6-3 ruling dealt with three individual issues before the court.
The State of Vermont argued that new circumstances and experiences since Buckley v. Valeo was decided in 1976 suggested that the law should be upheld as Constitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled against the state of Vermont on all three issues, reaffirming both Buckley and Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee and striking down the law as unconstitutional. Randall is particularly important as the first case in which the Supreme Court has struck down a contribution limit as unconstitutionally low.
Ohio State Law Journal Symposium on Randall v. Sorrell
...
Wikipedia