Previous 25 / 51 Next

22 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N Opinion of the Court precedents as “so undermined” by subsequent developments that they are “no longer good law” and “retai[n ] no vitality.” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 217– 218 (1997); Herrera v. Wyoming, 587 U. S. 329, 342 (2019) (quotation marks omitted); see also Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist., 597 U. S. 507, 534 (2022) (recognizing that “this Court long ago abandoned” a precedent and treating it as already overruled). The Court has not hesitated to reject adherence to a “doctrinal dinosaur or legal last-manstanding.” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. 446, 458 (2015). That description is apt for Colorado II. Nonetheless, we will proceed to apply the ordinary stare decisis factors. The Court has often stated that stare decisis promotes the “evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827 (1991). But stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. 83, 105 (2020) (quotation marks omitted). And it is “at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution.” Ibid. (quotation marks omitted). As Justice Brandeis wrote and remains true: In “cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions.” Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U. S. 393, 406–407 (1932) (dissenting opinion). When conducting the stare decisis inquiry, the Court has sometimes broadly phrased the issue as whether a “special justification” for overruling exists. See Ramos, 590 U. S., at 120, n. 3 (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part). The Court decides whether to overrule a constitutional precedent by considering the egregiousness of the precedent’s error, the jurisprudential and real-world effects of the decision, and any cognizable reliance interests. Id., at 105–106 (opinion

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether FECA's limits on political parties' coordinated expenditures with candidates violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, and specifically whether Colorado II—which upheld those limits under a deferential standard of review—remains good law in light of the Court's subsequent, more demanding campaign finance jurisprudence requiring that restrictions be "necessary," "narrowly tailored," and not "disproportionate" to the government's interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption.

Alleged Acts: The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) imposes limits on the amount a political party may spend in coordination with its candidates during political campaigns—known as "coordinated-expenditure limits." 52 U.S.C. §30116(d). These limits vary by office: for Senate candidates, the national party committee may spend between $130,600 and $4,071,800; for House candidates, between $65,300 and $130,600; and for Presidential candidates, up to $32,392,200. In 2022, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), then-candidate for Senate JD Vance, and then-Representative Steve Chabot sued the FEC, arguing that these limits violate the First Amendment. They contend that FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. (Colorado II), 533 U.S. 431 (2001)—which upheld the limits—is no longer good law in light of the Court's more recent campaign finance decisions, particularly McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014), and FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289 (2022). Notably, the United States (Executive Branch) agreed with plaintiffs that the limits are no longer constitutional, declining to defend them.

Procedural history: The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' challenge and upheld FECA's coordinated-expenditure limits, applying Colorado II. However, a majority of the Sixth Circuit judges questioned Colorado II's continued vitality.

Summary: National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC is a landmark First Amendment campaign finance decision in which the Supreme Court struck down FECA's limits on political-party coordinated expenditures as unconstitutional. Writing for the 6–3 majority, Justice Kavanaugh held that existing base contribution limits, earmarking rules, and disclosure requirements together provide sufficient protection against quid pro quo corruption, making the additional coordinated-expenditure limits "disproportionate" and not "narrowly tailored." The Court formally overruled Colorado II (2001), finding its reasoning had been thoroughly undermined by subsequent precedents, particularly McCutcheon and Cruz. The dissent, authored by Justice Kagan, argued that without the caps, donors could circumvent base contribution limits by funneling large contributions through political parties to candidates, thereby reviving opportunities for quid pro quo corruption. The decision applies equally to all political parties and removes a significant regulatory constraint on party-candidate coordination.

Conclusion: In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and held that FECA's political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. The Court concluded that the combination of (i) base contribution limits, (ii) earmarking rules (52 U.S.C. §30116(a)(8)), and (iii) disclosure requirements (52 U.S.C. §30104(b)) already serve as three sufficient prophylactic measures against quid pro quo corruption. The coordinated-expenditure limits would operate as a "fourth prophylaxis" that is "disproportionate" and not "necessary" given the less-speech-restrictive alternatives. The Court also noted that a majority of States do not impose similar limits on party coordinated expenditures, and no evidence of resulting corruption has materialized.

Legal Issue(s)

Campaign Finance
Conflict of Interests

Applicable Law(s): First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Federal Election Campaign Act

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Jun 30, 2026

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.8906

Longitude: -77.0047

: Geolocation

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-621_h315.pdf

Primary Documents

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

Primary Documents

Notifications