Florida's Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 7C(1), prohibits a judicial candidate from personally soliciting campaign funds but allows the candidate to establish committees to raise money and obtain public support. Williams-Yulee, a Florida lawyer running for county court judge, signed a letter and posted it online asking recipients to contribute specific amounts to her campaign. She lost the election, and the Florida Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings based on her admitted personal solicitation. The Florida Supreme Court adopted a referee's recommendation that she be publicly reprimanded and pay costs.
Issue
Does the First Amendment permit a State to prohibit judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign funds while allowing fundraising through campaign committees? More specifically, does Florida's Canon 7C(1) survive strict scrutiny as a content-based restriction on speech?
Rule
A State may restrict the speech of a judicial candidate only if the restriction is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. A ban on personal solicitation of campaign funds by judicial candidates satisfies the First Amendment when it advances the compelling interest of preserving public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and is narrowly tailored to target the personal solicitation that most directly threatens that interest.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Ohio adopts a rule providing that a candidate for municipal judge may not personally ask anyone for campaign donations, though the candidate may create a campaign committee to raise money and may otherwise speak publicly about qualifications and issues. During a race in Cleveland, Nora Patel personally records a video saying, "I have the experience this court needs, and I ask you to contribute today." She is disciplined and argues the rule should be reviewed under the more forgiving standard used for contribution limits.
What is the strongest response to Nora's First Amendment challenge?
Explanation. The majority held that a ban on a judicial candidate's personal solicitation of campaign funds is a content-based speech restriction and is reviewed under strict scrutiny. The Court rejected importing the more permissive "closely drawn" standard from contribution-limit cases because the regulation targeted the candidate's speech, not merely associational interests in making contributions. Thus the proper response is that strict scrutiny governs.