French v. Jones, No. 15-35990 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in an action filed by a Montana judicial candidate, Mark French, alleging that Montana's campaign-speech rule, which prohibits judicial candidates from seeking, accepting, or using political endorsements in their election campaigns, violated his First Amendment rights. The panel held that Montana has compelling interests in an impartial and independent judiciary; Rule 4.1(A)(7) of the Montana Code of Juridical Conduct was narrowly tailored to those interests because it strikes an appropriate balance between a candidate's speech and Montana's interest in an independent and impartial judiciary; and French's arguments to the contrary were foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656 (2015), and the panel's decision in Wolfson v. Concannon, 811 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in an action brought by Mark French, a Montana judicial candidate, who alleged that Montana’s campaign-speech rule, which prohibits judicial candidates from seeking, accepting, or using political endorsements in their election campaigns, violated his First Amendment rights. The panel held that Montana has compelling interests in an impartial and independent judiciary and that Rule 4.1(A)(7) of the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct was narrowly tailored to those interests. The panel held that Rule 4.1(A)(7) struck an appropriate balance between a candidate’s speech and Montana’s interest in an independent and impartial judiciary. The panel held that French’s arguments to the contrary were foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s FRENCH V. JONES 3 decision in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656 (2015), and this Circuit’s decision in Wolfson v. Concannon, 811 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). The panel rejected French’s arguments that Rule 4.1(A)(7) was fatally underinclusive. The panel held that: (1) an endorsement from a political party threatened the public perception of judicial independence to a greater degree than an endorsement from an interest group; (2) Montana could reasonably conclude that political endorsements were more suggestive of a quid-pro-quo exchange than donations; and (3) it made sense for Montana to prohibit the solicitation and use of endorsements during a judicial candidate’s campaign and to limit those endorsement to political office holders and entities. The panel further held that the seeking and using of political endorsements was distinct from announcing one’s views on certain issues. The panel rejected French’s argument that Rule 4.1(A)(7) was overinclusive because Montana does not allow the candidates’ campaign committees to seek and use political endorsements. The panel held that Montana had reasonably determined that both candidates and their committees posed a threat to its judiciary when they sought, accepted, or used political endorsements in their campaigns. 4 FRENCH V. JONES
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.