Court takes up potentially important case on campaign-finance regulations

Creating the prospect of a major case on campaign-finance regulations, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to revisit its 2001 ruling in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, in which the justices upheld federal limits on coordinated campaign expenditures, which restrict political parties from spending money on campaign advertising with input from political candidates. 

The announcement came on a list of orders released from the justices’ private conference on Thursday, June 26. The case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, will likely be argued in the fall, with a decision to follow in 2026. 

The dispute now before the court was filed by the NRSC, the National Republican Congressional Committee, then-Sen. J.D. Vance, and former Rep. Steve Chabot, who represented Ohio in the House of Representatives for more than two decades. The challengers contended that the law violates the First Amendment, and they argued that the Colorado decision should no longer apply because the Supreme Court’s later cases have “tightened the free-speech restrictions on campaign-finance regulations,” while political fundraising and spending have also changed. 

In a decision by Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit  acknowledged that the challengers had identified “several ways in which tension has emerged between” the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the 2001 Colorado case and its later campaign-finance decisions. But, the court of appeals said, the Supreme Court has not overruled its 2001 decision, and the Circuit lacks the power to do so. 

The challengers came to the Supreme Court in December, asking the justices to weigh in. Represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, they urged the justices to grant review and “vindicate the fundamental principle that the government cannot abridge ‘the political speech a political party shares with its members’—‘speech which is ‘at the core of our electoral process and of the First Amendment freedoms.’”

The Trump administration agreed with the challengers that the restrictions violate the First Amendment and that the court should grant review. 

In a brief unsigned order on Monday, the justices agreed to take up the case. They also granted a motion from the Democratic National Committee for permission to join the case. 

The DNC, in its motion, promised to “provide a vigorous and informed defense of the coordinated expenditure limits now under attack.”