The Supreme Court’s weekly highlight of petitions brings attention to various significant legal issues, notably those regarding campaign finance regulations. Recently, several petitions have been submitted that challenge the constitutionality of limits on coordinated expenditures by political parties.

Background on Coordinated Party Expenditures

The origins of restrictions on coordinated party expenditures can be traced back to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. This legislation aimed to establish a cohesive framework for campaign financing in federal elections, thereby regulating expenditures through the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Under this act, there are stringent limits on how much individuals can donate to candidates and political parties—referred to as contributions—alongside rules governing how parties and candidates can independently spend their funds for electoral purposes.

Key Supreme Court Decisions

Throughout the years, the Supreme Court has cases that scrutinize the campaign finance laws. A pivotal moment came in 1976 with the **Buckley v. Valeo** decision, where the Court invalidated limits on independent expenditures but generally upheld limits on contributions.

The **FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee** ruling in 2001 reaffirmed limits on coordinated expenditures, with the Court asserting that these restrictions helped prevent circumvention of contribution limits by political donors using party committees.

Current Legal Challenges

Fast forward to present day, the decision from 2001 is now facing renewed scrutiny. A group of Republican officials, including former Senator J.D. Vance, filed a lawsuit claiming that the established limits violate the First Amendment. This case originated from challenges put forth in federal courts that ultimately reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

In a decision reinforcing previous rulings, the 6th Circuit determined it was constrained by the Supreme Court’s earlier 2001 decision. Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton noted, however, that the court might have ruled differently with an unencumbered perspective.

Republican Party’s Petition to the Supreme Court

In their petition, the National Republican Senatorial Committee argues for a reevaluation of the 2001 ruling. They provide two main lines of reasoning: First, they suggest that the underlying justification for the expenditure limits has shifted significantly over the years, while secondly, they argue that campaign finance has evolved with the emergence of Super PACs, which facilitate unlimited political spending without the same restrictions.

Moreover, the Republican Party points to changes in legislation since 2014 that have allowed for greater coordinated spending by parties concerning specific activities, which they believe necessitates a reassessment of existing limits.

The Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has requested additional time to respond to this petition. The stance of the Biden administration, which previously supported the federal limits, remains uncertain as the case progresses.

Notable Petitions This Week

Alongside the pivotal National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC case, several other petitions are under consideration:

• Wheeler v. United States (24-678): Challenges the deprivation of trial rights for servicemembers in criminal prosecutions under the Fifth Amendment.
• Energetic Tank, Inc. v. United States (24-683): Questions the applicability of the Feres Doctrine to claims outside the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Meadors v. Erie County Board of Elections (24-684): Discusses the doctrine of “capable of repetition, yet evading review” in election law contexts.
• McBrine v. United States (24-685): Investigates the right to jury trials under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022.
• Young v. Swaney (24-686): Examines the possibility of granting a certificate of appealability under binding circuit precedent.
• Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (24-699): Analyzes the intersection of the Helms-Burton Act and sovereign immunity regarding Cuban entities.
• Antonyuk v. James (24-795): Evaluates historical perspectives on the Second Amendment’s application and regulations on firearms ownership.