Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Limits on Party Coordinated Spending in NRSC v. FEC, Overruling Colorado II

On June 30, 2026, in No. 24–621, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on what a political party may spend in coordination with its candidates violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson. The judgment reversed the en banc Sixth Circuit, which had upheld the limits under the Court’s 2001 decision in Colorado II.

The majority’s reasoning: the 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.” It then overruled Colorado II: “To the extent that Colorado II has retained any vitality, it is now overruled.”

Kagan’s dissent argues the same mechanism cuts the other way: 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. She wrote: “I’m not sure what to call a remnant of a remnant, but that is what the Court has left today.”

Marc E. Elias argued the cause for the intervenors DNC et al.

Later Court action on party spending: 2026-09-04–scotus-stays-fourth-circuit-party-ad-rate-ruling-nrcc-v-brown, on the discounted ad rates the FCC extended to party coordinated ads in 2026-03-30–fcc-media-bureau-da-26-300-extends-lowest-unit-charge-to-party-coordinated-and-jfc-ads.