NEVADA COMMISSION ON ETHICS v. CARRIGAN

Legal Principle at Issue

Does a public official’s legislative vote constitute protected speech under the First Amendment, such that restrictions (like ethics recusal rules) violate free speech rights?

Action

Reversed and remanded. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

Nevada’s Ethics in Government Law (2007) requires public officials to recuse themselves from voting on, or advocating the passage or failure of, “a matter with respect to which the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in his situation would be materially affected by . . . his commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others,” which includes a “commitment to a [specified] person,” like a member of the officer’s household or the officer’s relative, and any other "commitment or relationship that is substantially similar” to one enumerated in the law.

Petitioner Nevada. ommission on Ethics administers and enforces Nevada’s law. The Commission investigated respondent Michael A. Carrigan, an elected local official who voted to approve a hotel/casino project proposed by a company that used Carrigan’s long-time friend and campaign manager as a paid consultant. The Commission concluded that Carrigan had a disqualifying conflict of interest under Nevada’s Ethics in Government Law and censured him for failing to abstain from voting on the project. Carrigan sought judicial review, arguing that the Nevada law violated the First Amendment. The state district court denied the petition, but the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that voting is protected speech and the Ethics in Government Law's catchall definition is unconstitutionally overbroad.