What is the question presented in Chiafalo v. Washington?

Whether enforcement of this law is unconstitutional because: (1) a State has no power to legally enforce how a presidential elector casts his or her ballot; and (2) a State penalizing an elector for exercising his or her constitutional discretion to vote violates the First Amendment.

What is Chiafalo v. Washington about?

This case asked whether Washington could fine presidential electors who broke their pledge and voted for someone other than the candidate who won the State’s popular vote in the 2016 election. The Supreme Court held that states may enforce those pledges and punish so-called faithless electors.

When did the Supreme Court decide Chiafalo v. Washington?

The Supreme Court decided Chiafalo v. Washington on July 6, 2020.

No. 19-465October Term 2019Decided Jul 6, 2020Updated Sep 3, 2026

Docket 19-465October Term 2019 (2019–2020)

Chiafalo v. Washington

States can require presidential electors to honor their pledges and can punish electors who do not.

Case status

Decided 9-0 · July 6, 2020 · Opinion by Justice Kagan

Majority

Read the opinion (PDF)

Current stage: Decided
Latest event: Decision released Jul 6, 2020

Case Accepted

Arguments

Decision ReleasedJul 6, 2020

What it's about: This case asked whether Washington could fine presidential electors who broke their pledge and voted for someone other than the candidate who won the State’s popular vote in the 2016 election. The Supreme Court held that states may enforce those pledges and punish so-called faithless electors.
Question presented
Whether enforcement of this law is unconstitutional because: (1) a State has no power to legally enforce how a presidential elector casts his or her ballot; and (2) a State penalizing an elector for exercising his or her constitutional discretion to vote violates the First Amendment.
Case path: Supreme Court of Washington / Decision released Jul 6, 2020
Area: First Amendment, Elections

Decision

Decision recordJul 6, 2020

What the Court decided

States can require presidential electors to honor their pledges and can punish electors who do not.

Impact

The decision allows states to penalize so-called faithless electors. For example, a Washington elector who votes against the state's popular-vote winner can be fined.

Not official Court text.

Vote

Vote split: 9-0

Majority author: Elena Kagan

Majority

Opinion documents

Opinion

Briefing

What it's about

The Court decided that states may enforce presidential electors' pledges to support the candidate who won their state's popular vote. Washington may fine electors who cast a different vote.

Vote

Justice Kagan wrote the 9–0 opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Alito; Justice Thomas concurred.

The Court issued its decision on July 6, 2020.

Majority

Kagan

Roberts

Thomas

Ginsburg

Breyer

Impact

The decision allows states to penalize so-called faithless electors. For example, a Washington elector who votes against the state's popular-vote winner can be fined.

What's next

The Court has finished this case. Washington may continue enforcing its pledge law against faithless electors.

What did the Supreme Court rule in Chiafalo v. Washington?

The Court said states may enforce electors' pledges to support the candidate who won the state's popular vote. States may punish electors who break those pledges.

Who is affected by Chiafalo v. Washington?

Presidential electors are directly affected. A Washington elector who votes for someone other than the state's popular-vote winner can be fined.

What happens next in Chiafalo v. Washington?

The case is finished at the Supreme Court. Washington may continue enforcing its law against faithless electors.

Timing

Decided July 6, 2020

The Court released its decision on July 6, 2020 without hearing oral argument.

Argument and decision days

Documents

Activity

Docket activity5

AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Sep 3, 2026 | Generated
Brief added: Questions Presented
May 24, 2026 | Court records
Opinion added: opinion
Jul 6, 2020 | Court records
Brief added: Petition
Oct 7, 2019 | Court records
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
Aug 2, 2019 | Court records

Related cases

Illustration for National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Election Commission, et al.

Docket 24-621National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Election Commission, et al.Decided Jun 30, 2026

Illustration for Michael Watson, Mississippi Secretary of State, Petitioner v. Republican National Committee, et al.

Docket 24-1260Michael Watson, Mississippi Secretary of State, Petitioner v. Republican National Committee, et al.Decided Jun 29, 2026

Illustration for First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc., Petitioner v. Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey

Docket 24-781First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc., Petitioner v. Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General of New JerseyDecided Apr 29, 2026

Illustration for Louisiana, Appellant v. Phillip Callais, et al.

Docket 24-109Louisiana, Appellant v. Phillip Callais, et al.Decided Apr 29, 2026

View the full docket

Grounding

Grounding: Primary materials plus reporting.
Note: Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
Checked: Sep 3, 2026
Method: Methodology

Primary materials11

Context reporting5