On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission that federal limits on the amount of money that a political party could spend in coordination with candidates were unconstitutional.

The court previously held that political parties, as well as candidates and private groups, may make unlimited independent expenditures during a campaign. But the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) placed limits on how much parties could spend on coordinated expenditures, such as a party consulting with a candidate on television ads or mailers. 

Under FECA, political parties could spend anywhere from $65,300 to $32,392,200 in coordination with a candidate running for federal office, depending on the state and whether the person was running for Congress or president.

The Supreme Court upheld these restrictions in a 2001 case, FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee.

In 2022, then-candidate for U.S. Senate J.D. Vance (R), then-U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot (R), and two national Republican Party groups challenged the restrictions as unconstitutional in light of recent court rulings related to campaign finance.

In the majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the restrictions violated the First Amendment and did not help accomplish the government’s interest in preventing corruption. The Supreme Court previously held that preventing corruption is the only allowable interest the government may claim in defending campaign finance regulations.

Kavanaugh said that other tools, such as disclosure requirements, were adequate to reduce the likelihood of corruption.

“To sum up: In light of the other meaningful prophylactic measures available to the Government, and given the severe infringement on First Amendment-protected political speech that ensues from limiting a political party’s spending in support of its candidates, we conclude that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits are ‘disproportionate’ and are not ‘necessary’ and ‘narrowly tailored’ for the circumvention interest it seeks to protect,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas joined Kavanaugh’s opinion. All six justices were appointed by Republican presidents.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court should not overturn its decision in the 2001 case. Kagan said that the restrictions were constitutional because they were narrowly tailored and necessary to prevent donors from giving to parties as a means of circumventing candidate contribution limits.

“The majority invalidates Congress’s restriction of coordinated expenditures, thus enabling a party to serve as an alternative checking account for a campaign,” Kagan wrote. “As a result, a donor will be able to give a party as much as half a million dollars (as compared to the $7,000 he can give directly to the candidate) to cover the candidate’s bills. … So the Court ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the contribution limits were meant to check.”

Kagan was joined in her dissent by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor. All three justices were appointed by Democratic presidents.

The NRSC case was one of three election-related cases the court heard during its 2025-2026 term.