Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan: Difference between revisions
added image of sparks, NV. started section in background on investigation |
more background |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
===Nevada's Ethics in Government Law=== |
===Nevada's Ethics in Government Law=== |
||
Nevada's Ethics in Government law states that "a public officer shall not vote upon or advocate the passage or failure of, but may otherwise participate in the consideration of, a matter with respect to which the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in the public officer’s situation would be materially affected by... the public officer’s commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others."<ref>[[#ethicslaw|§281A.420(3)]]</ref> The law defines commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others as a "a commitment to a person who is a member of the public officer’s or employee’s household; is related to the public officer or employee by blood, adoption or marriage within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity; employs the public officer or employee or a member of the public officer’s or employee’s household; whom the public officer or employee has a substantial and continuing business relationship; or any other commitment or relationship that is substantially similar to a commitment or relationship described."<ref>[[#ethicslaw|§281A.420(8)(a)-(e)]]</ref> |
Nevada's Ethics in Government law states that "a public officer shall not vote upon or advocate the passage or failure of, but may otherwise participate in the consideration of, a matter with respect to which the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in the public officer’s situation would be materially affected by... the public officer’s commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others."<ref>[[#ethicslaw|§281A.420(3)]]</ref> The law defines commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others as a "a commitment to a person who is a member of the public officer’s or employee’s household; is related to the public officer or employee by blood, adoption or marriage within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity; employs the public officer or employee or a member of the public officer’s or employee’s household; whom the public officer or employee has a substantial and continuing business relationship; or any other commitment or relationship that is substantially similar to a commitment or relationship described."<ref>[[#ethicslaw|§281A.420(8)(a)-(e)]]</ref> |
||
===Lazy 8 Development Project=== |
|||
===Investigation of Michael Carrigan=== |
===Investigation of Michael Carrigan=== |
||
The Nevada Commission on Ethics is the body responsible for administering and enforcing the Ethics in Government law.<ref>[[#ethicslaw|§281A.280(1)]]</ref> In |
The Nevada Commission on Ethics is the body responsible for administering and enforcing the Ethics in Government law.<ref>[[#ethicslaw|§281A.280(1)]]</ref> In 2007, the Commission found that Michael Carrigan, an elected member of the City Council of [[Sparks, Nevada]], had violated the law for not abstaining from voting on the Lazy 8 project.<ref>"Councilman Carrigan violated NRS 281.501, subsection 2, by not abstaining from voting on the Lazy 8 matter at the August 23, 2006 Council meeting."[[#commissionop| Conclusions of Law p. 5]]</ref> |
||
===Nevada Supreme Court Ruling=== |
|||
==Opinion of the Court== |
==Opinion of the Court== |
||
| Line 49: | Line 53: | ||
==Notes== |
==Notes== |
||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist|2}} |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
| Line 58: | Line 62: | ||
* <span id="alitoconc" class="citation">{{cite journal |author=Supreme Court of the United States |year=2011 |month=June |url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-568P.ZC1 |title=''Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Alito Concurrence)''}}</span> |
* <span id="alitoconc" class="citation">{{cite journal |author=Supreme Court of the United States |year=2011 |month=June |url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-568P.ZC1 |title=''Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Alito Concurrence)''}}</span> |
||
* <span id="ethicslaw" class="citation">{{cite journal |author=Nevada Revised Statutes |url=http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-281A.html |title=Ethics In Government}}</span> |
* <span id="ethicslaw" class="citation">{{cite journal |author=Nevada Revised Statutes |url=http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-281A.html |title=Ethics In Government}}</span> |
||
* <span id="commissionop" class="citation">{{cite journal |author=Nevada Commission on Ethics |url=http://ethics.nv.gov/OPINIONS%20-%20TEXT/2006/carrigan%20opinion.pdf |title=Carrigan Opinion" |year=2007 |month=October}}</span> |
|||
{{refend}} |
{{refend}} |
||
Revision as of 19:18, 18 December 2011
 | This article or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. This template was placed by -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg),. If this article or section has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This article was last edited by Sailing to Byzantium (talk | contribs) 13 years ago. (Update timer) |
| Nevada Comm. on Ethics v. Carrigan | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 27, 2011 Decided June 13, 2011 | |
| Full case name | Nevada Comm. on Ethics v. Carrigan |
| Docket no. | 10-568 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Holding | |
| The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Kennedy |
| Concurrence | Alito |
Nevada Comm. on Ethics v. Carrigan, No. 10-568 (2011), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad. The law requires government officials to recuse themselves from advocating for and voting on the passage of legislation if private commitments to the interests of others materially affect the official's judgment. Under this law, the Nevada Commission on Ethics censured city councilman Michael Carrigan for voting on a land project for which his campaign manager was a paid consultant. Carrigan challenged his censure in court and the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that voting is protected speech. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that voting is not First Amendment speech.
Background
Nevada's Ethics in Government Law
Nevada's Ethics in Government law states that "a public officer shall not vote upon or advocate the passage or failure of, but may otherwise participate in the consideration of, a matter with respect to which the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in the public officer’s situation would be materially affected by... the public officer’s commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others."[1] The law defines commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others as a "a commitment to a person who is a member of the public officer’s or employee’s household; is related to the public officer or employee by blood, adoption or marriage within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity; employs the public officer or employee or a member of the public officer’s or employee’s household; whom the public officer or employee has a substantial and continuing business relationship; or any other commitment or relationship that is substantially similar to a commitment or relationship described."[2]
Lazy 8 Development Project
Investigation of Michael Carrigan
The Nevada Commission on Ethics is the body responsible for administering and enforcing the Ethics in Government law.[3] In 2007, the Commission found that Michael Carrigan, an elected member of the City Council of Sparks, Nevada, had violated the law for not abstaining from voting on the Lazy 8 project.[4]
Nevada Supreme Court Ruling
Opinion of the Court
Kennedy's Concurrence
Alito's Concurrence
Notes
- ^ §281A.420(3)
- ^ §281A.420(8)(a)-(e)
- ^ §281A.280(1)
- ^ "Councilman Carrigan violated NRS 281.501, subsection 2, by not abstaining from voting on the Lazy 8 matter at the August 23, 2006 Council meeting." Conclusions of Law p. 5
References
- Supreme Court of the United States (2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Syllabus)".
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - Supreme Court of the United States (2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Opinion)".
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - Supreme Court of the United States (2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Kennedy Concurrence)".
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - Supreme Court of the United States (2011). "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (Alito Concurrence)".
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - Nevada Revised Statutes. "Ethics In Government".
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - Nevada Commission on Ethics (2007). "Carrigan Opinion"" (PDF).
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |