Randall v. Sorrell
2006 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Randall v. Sorrell?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
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.[1] A key issue in the case was the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo,[2] which many justices felt needed to be revisited.
Quick Facts Randall v. Sorrell, Argued February 28, 2006 Decided June 26, 2006 ...
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 |
Case history | |
Prior | 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, 545 U.S. 1165 (2005). |
Holding | |
Vermont's campaign finance restrictions violated the First Amendment. Second Circuit reversed and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Breyer, joined by Roberts; Alito (all but Parts II–B–1 and II–B–2) |
Concurrence | Alito (in part) |
Concurrence | Kennedy (in judgment) |
Concurrence | Thomas (in judgment), joined by Scalia |
Dissent | Stevens |
Dissent | Souter, joined by Ginsburg; Stevens (Parts II and III) |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I |
Close