The Supreme Court considers fundraising by judges and segregation in the housing market.

Should Aspiring Judges Be Able to Raise Campaign Funds the Same Way Other Candidates Can?

Should Aspiring Judges Be Able to Raise Campaign Funds the Same Way Other Candidates Can?

Law and the Supreme Court justices who interpret it.
Jan. 25 2015 8:31 AM

Amicus: “Thank You” Not “Please”

Dahlia Lithwick considers a First Amendment challenge to a law banning judicial candidates from asking for campaign donations. And, the Supreme Court takes up housing segregation.


Listen to Episode 9 of Slate’s Amicus:

There are currently 39 states in which at least some judges are elected, and 30 of those states have some kind of law or ethics code provision that prohibits a judicial candidate from directly asking for campaign donations. This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Williams-Yulee v. the Florida Bar, a First Amendment case that challenges one of those laws. On this episode of Amicus, Dahlia speaks with Andrew Pincus, one of the attorneys who argued the case.

Later in the podcast, Dahlia is joined by Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. They discuss the week’s other big case, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. the Inclusive Communities Project Inc. It tests whether housing market maneuvers that result in de facto segregation should qualify for review under the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Ifill explains why she thinks so much is at stake in the case, and why the Fair Housing Act remains such an important tool in the ongoing struggle for civil rights in America.

Please let us know what you think of Amicus, our new legal affairs podcast. Our email is

Podcast production by Tony Field.

Dahlia Lithwick writes about the courts and the law for Slate and hosts the podcast Amicus.