I first noted Nevada Ethics Commission v. Corrigan back in December. Today the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, to be heard in April.
Florida filed an amicus brief urging the Court to take the case, on behalf of Florida, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, and Texas. The question is whether laws governing recusal of elected officials in voting on matters in which they might have a personal interest are subject to strict scrutiny if challenged on First Amendment grounds. The states argue that the Court should reverse the Nevada Supreme Court case and make clear that such conflict of interest provisions do not violate the First Amendment.
I’ll have more to say about the case after I’ve read through the briefs, but my first reaction is that I am not at all convinced that the act of voting by an elected official (as opposed to speaking about a measure before or after a vote) is protected First Amendment activity at all. I think it is likely that the Court will reverse in this case.