This just in.
In a case we've followed closely, the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that Nevada's Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad, and that a state may regulate apparent conflicts of interest in legislative voting without infringing upon an elected official's First Amendment speech rights.
In an opinion by Justice Scalia and joined by CJ Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, the Court concluded that legislative voting is not "speech," and when voting, an elected official is acting as trustee for his constituents, and not for herself. The Court reversed the Nevada Supreme Court's contrary conclusion, and upheld the Nevada Commission on Ethics' censure of a city council member for not recusing himself from voting on a casino development proposal when the council member's personal friend and campaign manager was the developer's "consultant." The council member disclosed the relationship, but voted to approve the project.
Justice Kennedy concurred separately "to note that the opinion does not, and on this record should not consider" the argument that the Nevada ethics law might impose burdens on First Amendment speech rights by restricting actions other than casting a vote.
Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment: "I concur in the judgment, but I do not agree with the opinion of the Court insofar as it suggests that restrictions upon legislators' voting are not restrictions upon legislators' speech," but "the Court demonstrates that legislative recusal rules were not regarded during the founding era as impermissible restrictions on freedom of speech. On that basis, I agree that the judgment below must be reversed."
More, after a chance to digest the opinions.
Nevada Commn on Ethics v Carrigan, No 10-568 (June 13 2011)
