Here's one that did.
The case is Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, and here are the questions presented before the court:
Whether a rule of judicial conduct that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign funds violates the First Amendment.
The court narrowly decided that it does not. State judges are to be above the political fray. By soliciting contributions, judicial candidates may appear to be on take. The compelling public purpose is to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
Here's a bit from the NYT coverage of the decision.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruledthat states may prohibit judicial candidates from personally asking their supporters for campaign contributions. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority.
“A state’s decision to elect judges does not compel it to compromise public confidence in their integrity,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision was a disguised attack on judicial elections that “flattens one settled First Amendment principle after another.”
The decision effectively upheld measures in 30 states that forbid judicial candidates to make personal appeals for money. Such solicitations, the states say, threaten the integrity of the judiciary and public confidence in the judicial system.For more:
- Click here for a symposium on the decision in Scotublog.
- Oyez: Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar
