## Facts

- Florida elects many judges and adopted a Code of Judicial Conduct provision barring judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign funds, while allowing fundraising committees to do so.
- Lanell Williams-Yulee, a Florida lawyer running for county court judge, signed and sent a solicitation letter seeking campaign contributions and posted it online.
- The Florida Bar filed a disciplinary complaint alleging the solicitation violated the applicable judicial-conduct rule.
- A referee recommended a public reprimand, and the Florida Supreme Court imposed discipline and rejected Williams-Yulee’s First Amendment challenge.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review to assess the constitutionality of the personal-solicitation ban.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment permits a state to prohibit judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign funds while allowing candidate-controlled committees to raise funds on the candidate’s behalf.
2. Whether such a content-based restriction on campaign speech can survive strict scrutiny as narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed, 5–4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts.
- The Court applied strict scrutiny because the restriction is content-based.
- The Court held Florida has a compelling interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.
- The Court held the rule is narrowly tailored because it targets the form of fundraising most likely to create an appearance (and risk) of partiality: direct requests by the candidate.
- The Court rejected arguments that the rule’s exceptions and partial coverage rendered it unconstitutional, emphasizing strict scrutiny does not require perfect tailoring and states may address the most acute aspect of a problem.

## Legal Principles

- A judicial-campaign restriction that turns on solicitation content is subject to strict scrutiny.
- Preserving public confidence in judicial integrity is a compelling governmental interest in the context of judicial elections.
- Narrow tailoring is satisfied where a rule focuses on the specific conduct most likely to undermine that interest, even if the regulatory scheme does not eliminate all related risks.
- A state may permit fundraising through committees while barring personal candidate solicitations to reduce the appearance of impropriety without foreclosing candidates’ ability to communicate on issues and qualifications.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Florida’s prohibition on judicial candidates personally soliciting campaign contributions, concluding that the content-based restriction survives strict scrutiny because it is narrowly tailored to the compelling interest in maintaining public confidence in an impartial judiciary.


Williams-Yulee v. Fla. Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (2015)