Syllabus
|
Opinion
[Roberts] |
Concurrence
[Breyer] |
Concurrence
[Alito] |
Concurrence
[Sotomayor] |
Concurrence
[Stevens] |
Concurrence
[Scalia] |
Dissent
[Thomas] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version |
JOHN DOE #1,
et al.
, PETITIONERS
v.
SAM REED,
WASHINGTON SECRETARY OF STATE, et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
Justice Breyer , concurring.
In circumstances where, as here, “a law significantly implicates competing constitutionally protected interests in complex ways,” the Court balances interests. Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC , 528 U. S. 377, 402 (2000) ( Breyer, J ., concurring). “And in practice that has meant asking whether the statute burdens any one such interest in a manner out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon the others.” Ibid. As I read their opinions, this is what both the Court and Justice Stevens do. See ante , at 7 (opinion of the Court); post , at 2 ( Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). And for the reasons stated in those opinions (as well as many of the reasons discussed by Justice Sotomayor ), I would uphold the statute challenged in this case. With this understanding, I join the opinion of the Court and Justice Stevens’ opinion.