To listen, please right click on the audio file you wish to hear and then select "Save Link As..." or "Save Target As..." After you save the audio file to your computer, you can then listen to it in your audio player of choice.

  Judicial Elections and Speech Restrictions - MP3
Running Time: 00:55:05

Judicial Elections and Speech RestrictionsSince the Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, judicial candidates have had the freedom to discuss their views on "disputed legal or political issues." Many questions remain after the decision, however, about states' ability to restrict the speech of judicial candidates and their supporters. For example, should judges and judicial candidates have the right to announce their party affiliation and appear at party functions? To endorse other candidates? To raise campaign funds personally? And where is the line between an acceptable statement that announces one's views and unacceptable statement that implicitly promises a result in a case the judge might decide in the future? When do a judge's campaign statements -- even if constitutionally protected -- trigger the judge's obligation to recuse? What is the effect of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., decided by the Supreme Court in 2009, in which the Court held that independent expenditures by a judicial candidate's supporters can sometimes require the judge to recuse in a case involving those supporters?


  • Mr. James Bopp, Jr., Bopp, Coleson, and Bostrom and General Counsel, James Madison Center for Free Speech
  • Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Widener University School of Law
  • Moderator: Mr. Paul Zimmerman, Director of Publications, The Federalist Society

[Return to the Practice Groups Podcasts menu]