# Doe v. Reed

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 24, 2010 · 561 U.S. 186

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6682169

## Case

- **Full name:** JOHN DOE 1 v. SAM REED, WASHINGTON SECRETARY OF STATE
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 24, 2010
- **Citations:** 561 U.S. 186; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 603; 38 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1833; 78 U.S.L.W. 4682; 177 L. Ed. 2d 493; 130 S. Ct. 2811; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5256
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Breyer
- **Judges:** Alito, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Mayor, Opinions, Roberts, Scalia, Soto, Sotomayor, Stevens, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 389 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6682169

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that “public disclosure of referendum petitions in general”—including the names and addresses of those who signed them— “is substantially related to the important interest of preserving the integrity of the electoral process,” and thus “disclosure under [Washington …
- holding that the plaintiffs had to satisfy the “standards for a facial challenge” because “the relief that would follow” was “an injunction barring the secretary of state from making [all] referendum petitions available to the public[,] ... reaching] beyond the particular circ…
- explaining that the particular label of the claim -- facial versus as applied -- "is not what matters" and - 21 - that "[t]he important point" is that the plaintiffs must "satisfy our standards for a facial challenge to the extent of [the] reach" of their claims
- explaining that in “rare case[s],” there may be a successful as-applied challenge where the “level of threat . . . would substantially limit a group’s ability to ‘garner the num- ber of signatures necessary to place [a] matter on the bal- lot’ ”
- holding that if the “plaintiffs’ claim and the relief that would follow ... reach beyond the particular circumstances of these plaintiffs,” then a challenge is a facial challenge, even if the plaintiffs bringing the claim label it otherwise

## Opinion text

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 , 120 S. Ct. 897 , 145 L. Ed. 2d 886 (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 196, 177 L. Ed. 2d, at 502-503 (opinion of the Court); post, at 217-218, 177 L. Ed. 2d, at 515-516 (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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6682169. Public record. Not legal advice.