The Supreme Court has struck down campaign spending limits in the US in a landmark ruling Court Affairs

The Supreme Court struck down campaign spending limits, citing First Amendment protections in a 6-3 decision

On the last day of the judgments of The term of the Supreme Court, The United States Supreme Court overturned a case that would limit campaign spending by rejecting a ban on joint spending between political parties and their representatives for liberal purposes.

The court handed down the decision on Tuesday in a 6-3 split, with six liberal justices citing liberal reasons, and three liberal justices dissenting.

Recommended Articles

list of 4 itemsend of series

The Supreme Court ruled that campaign spending, based on what the candidates have done, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution while a lower court upheld the limit.

The ruling, stemming from a Republican-led lawsuit, violates a more than 50-year-old election law that prohibits party spending. Among the Republican candidates at the center of the lawsuit is now Vice President JD Vance. Vance was running for the U.S. Senate in Ohio when the 2022 ban was filed.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 regulates the raising and spending of money in US elections by limiting the amount of money that can be used to elect candidates, in order to prevent corruption.

Under the law, money that a political party spends on behalf of or against someone who is not associated with its campaign is considered “independent money” – and does not have to be reimbursed.

Funding between the party and the campaign, however, is prohibited.

Tuesday’s ruling overturned a 2001 ruling in which the Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee challenged the Federal Election Commission’s injunction, but the high court upheld the margin on a 5-4 vote.

In 2024, the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the limit.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that trends in campaign finance over the past few decades, including changes in the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, undermined the logic of the 2001 decision and urged the justices to reverse it.

Then, after Donald Trump took office, the Federal Election Commission refused to defend a federal law that Vance and other critics had challenged. The Supreme Court appointed lawyer Roman Martinez to do this. It also requested the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to intervene to protect the spending.

These spending limits vary from state to state, being lower in less populated areas and higher in more populated areas. In 2025, the limits went from about $127,000 to $3.9m for Senate candidates and from about $63,000 to $127,000 for House of Representatives candidates.

The Supreme Court has issued its ruling on campaign finance as the November midterm elections loom, as President Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans seek to maintain control of Congress.

The three major Republican committees – the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee – ended May with $256m in cash and no debt. This was almost double the $126m of their Democratic counterparts, who also owed more than $18m.

Results of the election

The Supreme Court has delivered a number of judgments over time that have implications for elections.

Justices on Monday upheld state laws that allow ballots received after Election Day to be counted, rejecting a Republican-led challenge to Mississippi’s five-day grace period and dealing with Trump’s impunity.

The court in April gave the main part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, opening the door for Republican-led southern states to eliminate majority-Black and majority-Latino governments before the midterms. Black and Latino voters tend to support Democratic candidates.

The election prompted several Republican-led states to redraw their electoral maps ahead of the midterms in an attempt to threaten traditionally Democratic US House seats.