Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Randall Vs. Sorrell

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 26, 2006

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

63 entries 5 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Arizona Vs. Rumsey US Supreme Court · May 29, 1984
  2. Buckley Vs. Valeo US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976
  3. Norman Vs. Reed US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1992
  4. California Democratic Party Vs. Jones US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 2000
  5. New York Times Co. Vs. Sullivan US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1964
  6. Syllabus October Term, 2005 Randall V. Sorrell
    Search
  7. s expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, see Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  8. s constraints, including those on expenditure limits. See, e.g., McConnell v. Federal
    Search
  9. more harm to protected First Amendment interests than their anticorruption objectives could justify, see, e.g., Nixon v. Shrink
    Search
  10. proportionality. See Bose Corp. v. Consumers
    Search
  11. important political right, the right to associate in a political party. See, e.g. , California Democratic Party v. Jones
    Search
  12. case law has not made Buckley a legal anomaly or otherwise undermined its basic legal principles. Cf. Dickerson v. United
    Search
  13. backup argument asking this Court to revisit Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  14. s campaign finance jurisprudence, see, e.g. , McConnell v. Federal
    Search
  15. s rationale for striking down that statute. Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  16. expenditure limits, finding the former to be a less severe infringement on First Amendment rights. See, e.g., Nixon v. Shrink
    Search
  17. should be subjected to strict scrutiny, which they would fail. See, e.g., Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal
    Search
  18. Vermont Republican State Committee et al. v. Sorrell
    Search
  19. Sorrell et al. v. Randall
    Search
  20. et al., also on certiorari to the same court. Randall v. Sorrell
    Search
  21. Opinion of Breyer, J. Randall V. Sorrell
    Search
  22. Amendment. Well-established precedent makes clear that the expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  23. s other contribution limits constitutional. Landell v. Sorrell
    Search
  24. s expenditure limits may be constitutional. Landell v. Sorrell
    Search
  25. A In Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  26. s constraints, including those on expenditure limits . See McConnell v. Federal
    Search
  27. Nixon v. Shrink
    Search
  28. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal
    Search
  29. California Medical Assn. v. Federal
    Search
  30. s earlier decisions and the rules of law they embody. See Harris v. United
    Search
  31. United States v. International
    Search
  32. Business Machines Corp. , 517 U. S. 843 , 856 (1996) (quoting Payne v. Tennessee
    Search
  33. nor have they shown that expenditure limits are the only way to attack that problem. Cf. McConnell v. FEC
    Search
  34. see also Brief for United States et al. as Amici Curiae in Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  35. that is, toward assessing the proportionality of the restrictions. See Bose Corp . v. Consumers
    Search
  36. quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
    Search
  37. Timmons v. Twin
    Search
  38. s contribution limit provisions from others that might remain fully operative. See Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation
    Search
  39. see also Minnesota v. Mille
    Search
  40. s expenditure limits violate the First Amendment as interpreted in Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  41. Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings. It is so ordered. Randall v. Sorrell
    Search
  42. s expenditure limits is that those limits are consistent with Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  43. invitation to reexamine Buckley . See United States v. International
    Search
  44. what matters is that respondents do not do so here, and so I think it unnecessary to reach the issue. Randall v. Sorrell
    Search
  45. Kennedy, J., Concurring in Judgment Randall V. Sorrell
    Search
  46. see also Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal
    Search
  47. a broader, systemic level political parties have been denied basic First Amendment rights. See, e.g. , McConnell v. Federal
    Search
  48. that system and its operation, however, it seems to me appropriate to concur only in the judgment. Randall v. Sorrell
    Search
  49. McConnell v. Federal
    Search
  50. See Bose Corp. v. Consumers
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial