2006 United States Supreme Court case
Randall v. Sorrell 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
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). Vermont's campaign finance restrictions violated the First Amendment. Second Circuit reversed and remanded.
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · David Souter Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
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) U.S. Const. amend. I
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.
Opinion of the Court [ edit ]
The 6–3 ruling dealt with three individual issues before the court.[ 3]
Did Vermont's law violate the First Amendment , Fourteenth Amendment , following the Supreme Court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo ,[ 2] which struck down limits on campaign expenditures as unconstitutional?
Did Vermont violate the right of political parties to make independent expenditures in accordance with the aforementioned amendments, following the Supreme Court ruling in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC ?
Did Vermont's contribution limits, which are the lowest in the country, allow only a single maximum contribution over a two-year election cycle, and prohibit state political parties from contributing more than $400 to their gubernatorial candidate, fall below an acceptable constitutional threshold and should be struck down? In Buckley , the Supreme Court had upheld contribution limits on the basis of the government's "compelling interest" in preventing political corruption or its appearance, but had left open the possibility that if limits were set so low as to prevent speakers from effectively presenting their message to the public, such limits might be unconstitutional.
The State of Vermont argued that new circumstances and experiences since Buckley v. Valeo was decided in 1976 suggested that the law should be upheld as Constitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled against the state of Vermont on all three issues, reaffirming both Buckley and Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee and striking down the law as unconstitutional.[ 4] Randall is particularly important as the first case in which the Supreme Court has struck down a contribution limit as unconstitutionally low.
Public displays and ceremonies Statutory religious exemptions Public funding Religion in public schools Private religious speech Internal church affairs Taxpayer standing Blue laws Other
Unprotected speech
Incitement and sedition Defamation andfalse speech Fighting words and the heckler's veto True threats Obscenity
Rosen v. United States (1896)
United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933)
Roth v. United States (1957)
One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958)
Smith v. California (1959)
Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961)
MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962)
Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964)
Ginzburg v. United States (1966)
Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)
Redrup v. New York (1967)
Ginsberg v. New York (1968)
Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971)
Kois v. Wisconsin (1972)
Miller v. California (1973)
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)
United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973)
Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)
Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975)
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975)
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976)
Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. (1980)
American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut (7th Cir. 1985)
People v. Freeman (Cal. 1988)
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (1994)
Reno v. ACLU (1997)
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000)
City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2002)
Ashcroft v. ACLU I (2002)
United States v. American Library Ass'n (2003)
Ashcroft v. ACLU II (2004)
Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
United States v. Williams (2008)
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir. 2009)
United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir. 2009)
United States v. Stevens (2010)
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n (2011)
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2012)
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025)
Speech integral to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny Overbreadth Vagueness Symbolic speech versus conductContent-based restrictions Content-neutral restrictions
Compelled speech Compelled subsidy of others' speech
Government grants and subsidies Government as speaker Loyalty oaths School speech Public employees Hatch Act and similar lawsLicensing and restriction of speech Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations (1973)
Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)
Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977)
Carey v. Population Services International (1977)
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)
In re Primus (1978)
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978)
Friedman v. Rogers (1979)
Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980)
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)
In re R.M.J. (1982)
Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985)
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California (1986)
Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986)
San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee (1987)
Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association (1988)
Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind (1988)
State University of New York v. Fox (1989)
Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (1990)
City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1993)
Edenfield v. Fane (1993)
United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. (1993)
Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy (1994)
Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1995)
Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995)
Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. (1995)
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. (1997)
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States (1999)
Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. (1999)
United States v. United Foods Inc. (2001)
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)
Nike, Inc. v. Kasky (2003)
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n (2005)
Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy (2007)
Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (2010)
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA (2010)
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (2017)
Matal v. Tam (2017)
Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)
Vidal v. Elster (2024)
Campaign finance and political speechAnonymous speech State action Official retaliation Boycotts Prisons
Organizations Future Conduct Solicitation Membership restriction Primaries and elections