Renne v. Geary
United States Supreme Court
501 U.S. 312 (1991)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Article II, § 6(b) of the California constitution provided that no political party or committee could endorse, support, or oppose a candidate for a nonpartisan office. Under § 6(a), all judicial, school, county, and city offices were nonpartisan. Members of various political committees (the committee members) (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the city and county of San Francisco and certain local officials (collectively, San Francisco) (defendants), arguing that § 6(b) violated the United States Constitution. The committee members claimed that they and their committees desired to endorse, support, and oppose political candidates for nonpartisan offices but that their fear of violating § 6(b) stopped them from doing so. The committee members also alleged that San Francisco had a policy of deleting committee endorsements from candidate statements, which the committee members claimed violated their right to receive information related to party endorsements. In 1987, the year that the lawsuit was filed, members of one committee did endorse a candidate for a nonpartisan office, but no enforcement action was taken against them. The district court held that § 6(b) was unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. The court of appeals affirmed the district court. San Francisco appealed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. During oral arguments, questions arose about whether the case was ripe for adjudication.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Marshall, J.)
Dissent (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.