In a decision perceived as a victory for the Republican Party, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down Federal Election Commission limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president.

The case was pushed by now-Vice President JD Vance.

It was decided on the expected 6-3 division with Democrat-nominated justices opposing the decision.

The high court said the Federal Election Campaign Act restricts a political party’s spending on campaign activities in coordination with candidates.

President Donald Trump called it “A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!”

The high court affirmed those limits back in 2001 “as consistent with the First Amendment.”

But that’s changed.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court rules that putting limits on political party campaign finance expenditures VIOLATE the First Amendment.

BIG WIN for Republicans @NRSC!

The vote is 6-3. pic.twitter.com/b1dg1PSs5A

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 30, 2026

“Petitioners—a group of candidates and political party committees—challenged FECA’s political party coordinated-expenditure limits under the First Amendment, arguing that Colorado II is no longer good law. In light of Colorado II, the en banc U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected petitioners’ First Amendment challenge.”

The new ruling is that “FECA’s political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment.”

“At the outset of the litigation, at least one of the plaintiffs—then-candidate for Senate JD Vance—undisputedly had standing. Vice President Vance still maintains an active ‘Statement of Candidacy’ on file with the FEC indicating his intent to run for Senate in 2028, as well as a campaign committee that has raised money for a Senate race, establishing that this dispute is justiciable,” the majority wrote.

“The First Amendment provides that ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.’ This Court has determined that political parties—as well as candidates, private individuals, and outside groups—may make unlimited independent expenditures during political campaigns,” the opinion said referring to its earlier Citizens United decision.

Now, “This case concerns FECA’s limits on spending by political parties in coordination with candidates. FECA limits political-party coordinated expenditures. FECA’s limits impair the party’s traditional forms of communication such as advertisements; preclude parties from amplifying the voice of their adherents; impose additional monetary costs and burdens on political parties; and inflict a ‘stifling effect on the ability of the party to do what it exists to do,'” the decision said.

Statutory limits on contributions to candidates or parties are subject to “closely drawn” scrutiny, and “to satisfy that standard, a regulation may not be ‘disproportionate’ and must be ‘necessary’ and ‘narrowly tailored’ to its asserted goal,” the justices said.

JUST IN: SCOTUS has ruled in NRSC v. FEC that the FECA limit on the amount of money parties can spend in coordination with a candidate for a federal office VIOLATES the First Amendment.

This will have massive implications for the midterms this November. pic.twitter.com/vTu2mQnTLG

— Ryan Van Slingerland (@real_rvslinger) June 30, 2026

The court using a “rigorous” judicial review, said, “the Court agrees with petitioners that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits are not proportionate, necessary, and narrowly tailored given the other less-speech-restrictive tools available to the Government to prevent circumvention—in particular, earmarking and disclosure laws.”

“Given the meaningful prophylactic measures available to combat quid pro quo corruption or its appearance, the Court concludes that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits at issue here are ‘disproportionate’ and are not ‘necessary’ and ‘narrowly tailored’ for the circumvention interest,” they said.

The spending limits had come out of a desire to prevent large donors from avoiding caps on individual contributions to a single candidate by giving money to a party, with the understanding it would go to that candidate.

After President Donald Trump took office for a second term, the Federal Election Commission dropped its defense of the law and joined with Republicans in urging that it be overturned.

Bob Unruh

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is currently a news editor for the WND News Center, and also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially. Read more of Bob Unruh's articles here.