In a six-to-three decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh issued on June 30, 2026, in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court invalidated long-standing limits on expenditures by political party committees that are made in coordination with candidates (“Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits”),¹ holding that the limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) violate the First Amendment. The decision lifts a considerable constraint on political party spending and permits parties to coordinate with their candidates, without limit, to better inform and direct party campaign spending.

The limits at issue in the case governed the ability of the national political parties to closely coordinate spending with candidates on campaign activities and advertising, including the audience, content, and timing of communications. On November 4, 2022, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (“NRSC”), the National Republican Congressional Committee (“NRCC”), Vice President (then-Senator) J.D. Vance, and former-Representative Steve Chabot (collectively, “the challengers”) sued alleging limits on party coordinated expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116(d) violate the First Amendment. The challengers argued that the limits prevented the NRSC and NRCC from coordinating with the Vance and Chabot campaigns beyond certain amounts when spending to support their campaigns, which restricted both the parties’ and candidates’ free speech. Alternatively, the challengers argued that the limits were at least unconstitutional as applied to party coordinated communications, such as advertisements, if not to all coordinated expenditures.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, issued a nearly unanimous decision ruling that the Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits did not violate the First Amendment, consistent with Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission (“Colorado II”). While only one judge dissented, the majority opinion and two concurrences suggested that the Supreme Court’s Colorado II decision was ripe for reconsideration to harmonize it with more recent campaign finance decisions. Nevertheless, as Chief Judge Sutton explained, the decision to invalidate the limits remained the “Supreme Court’s province, not ours.”

In sum, the Court agreed with the challengers that the Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits “are disproportionate and are not necessary and narrowly tailored for the circumvention interest it seeks to protect.” Formally overruling precedent, the majority explained that Colorado II’s “reasoning has been rejected by subsequent cases and is no longer good law in light of the Court’s more recent precedents.”

While the NRSC v. FEC decision does not affect how much individuals and PACs may contribute to political party committees, it significantly alters how parties may use the funds they raise from those sources. Additionally, this ruling has no bearing on existing restrictions on coordinated spending made by other actors, such as individuals, PACs, and super PACs, which remain in place.

1 Since the 1974 Amendments to FECA, the FEC has set specific dollar-amount limits on coordinated expenditures parties may make depending on the state and office sought. See https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-political-party/coordinated-party-expenditures/coordinated-party-expenditure-limits/.