Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-309_4f15.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

and the Court of Common Pleas.  App. 173–175; App. to Pet.
for Cert. 70a–72a.  It then granted summary judgment to
Adams on the merits, App. 165; App. to Pet. for Cert. 83a,
holding that Delaware’s balancing scheme as a whole was 
unconstitutional, App. 175–181; App. to Pet. for Cert. 75a–
81a. 

Governor Carney appealed to the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The appellate court affirmed 
in  part  and  reversed  in  part.  Adams  v.  Governor  of  Del., 
922 F. 3d 166 (2019).  Like the District Court, it held that 
Adams had standing to challenge the major party require-
ment, id., at 175, but unlike the District Court, it held that 
Adams did not have standing to challenge the bare majority 
requirement (in any of the five courts), id., at 174–175.  The 
court  held  that  the  bare  majority  requirement  itself  does 
not preclude independents from eligibility for any vacancy. 
Ibid. 

The court then focused on the major party requirement,
which applies only to three of the five courts.  Did that con-
stitutional provision bar independent voters from becoming
judges on those courts?  If so, was that bar constitutional? 
If not, was that provision severable from the rest of the Del-
aware Constitution’s political balance provisions, in partic-
ular, from the bare majority requirement as applied to the
Supreme  Court,  the  Chancery  Court,  and  the  Superior 
Court? 

The Third Circuit concluded that the major party require-
ment categorically excludes independents and members of 
third parties from becoming judges on the Supreme Court, 
the Chancery Court, and the Superior Court.  922 F. 3d, at 
182–183.  It held that the major party requirement conse-
quently  violates  the  Federal  Constitution’s  First  Amend-
ment.  Ibid.  And it held that the major party requirement 
is not severable from the bare majority requirement.  Id., at 
183–184.  The Circuit concluded that both requirements (as
applied to those three courts) are invalid.  Ibid.