There are at least two controversies over putting the Williams-Yulee Supreme Court decision among other documents relating to federal campaign finance laws. Firstly, it refers to rules which were created by the Florda Bar and applied to the professional conduct of lawyers within the state of Florida. Secondly, the election process, which became of the Court's interest, was a judicial election and action undertaken by a candidate for Florida county court, not the legislative or executive departments. Still, there is a necessity to include the decision, as it also concerns the general problem of conducting electoral campaigns, and the Court's argumentation is connected with the interpretation of the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that, despite the existence of a conservative block on the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts, jr. decided to move towards a more liberal approach, and delivered the majority opinion, thus revealing possible divisions in Justices’ ideology in future campaign finance cases.

Lanell Williams-Yulee participated in the judicial election campaign in Florida, during which she decided to personally solicit campaign donations, which was inconsistent with the rules of the Florida Bar. She also made some inaccurate statements in the media during her campaigning process, misleading public opinion about her opponent in the judicial race. Although there was a possibility of ending the disciplinary procedure against her with a formal reprimend, William-Yulee decided to file a suit, in which she claimed that her freedom of speech rights were infringed by the rules of the Florida Bar. When the case reached the Supreme Court, five Justices ruled against Williams-Yulee, arguing that the ban on personal solicitation of campaign funds by candidates for judicial posts was consistent with compelling state interest. The majority underlined the value of freedom of speech, especially in election campaigns, but the Justices wanted to protect the integrity and sovereignty of the judicial department, which was endangered by such conduct as Williams-Yulee's. Therefore the Court, despite harsh criticism from four conservatives, demonstrated that the interpretation of campaign finance regulations depends mainly on the individual approaches of the Justices towards the scope of First Amendment guaranteees, as well as the meaning of ‘compelling state interest’, which may be different in cases regarding different branches of government.