In a major development for political free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Republican-led challenge to a long-standing federal campaign finance provision that restricts how much political parties can spend in direct coordination with their own candidates.

At the center of the case is Vice President JD Vance, who, during his successful 2022 run for U.S. Senate in Ohio, joined two key Republican committees in suing to strike down the limits on coordinated campaign expenditures. The plaintiffs argue that these restrictions violate the First Amendment by preventing political parties from fully associating with and advocating on behalf of their own nominees.

“The restrictions imposed severely restrict political party committees from doing what the First Amendment entitles them to do: fully associate with and advocate for their own candidates for federal office,” the plaintiffs stated in court filings.

The Supreme Court’s decision to take the case sets the stage for a potential landmark ruling that could reshape the nation’s campaign finance landscape—much like the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which struck down limits on independent expenditures by corporations and other outside groups.

While Citizens United unleashed a wave of political spending by third parties, the legality of coordinated expenditures between candidates and political parties remains unresolved. This case squarely asks whether the federal government can lawfully dictate how much a political party can spend in cooperation with its own candidates—particularly when that collaboration reflects strategic alignment and mutual goals.

The Trump administration has filed a brief in support of Vice President Vance and the Republican committees. The Department of Justice has reversed its previous position, withdrawing support for the existing restrictions and asking the Supreme Court to appoint an independent party to defend the lower court’s decision.

At issue is a section of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which caps “coordinated expenditures” by political parties in federal elections. These limits, which vary based on state population, are distinct from independent expenditures, which remain unrestricted.

For example, in 2024, the FEC capped coordinated spending for Senate races between approximately $123,000 and $3.7 million, depending on the state. For House races, the limits ranged from $62,000 to $123,000. Republican committees argue that such limits are arbitrary and infringe on their ability to effectively support their candidates in competitive races.

In 2022, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), Vice President Vance, and former Rep. Steve Chabot filed suit seeking to block enforcement of these rules.

However, in 2024, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the spending limits, citing a 2001 Supreme Court precedent that supported similar restrictions in a Colorado case. The appellate judges acknowledged that they were bound by precedent, but the plaintiffs argue that this precedent is now outdated in light of recent Supreme Court rulings on political speech.

Now, the high court has agreed to revisit that precedent.

In addition to granting the appeal, the justices also approved a motion from three Democrat-aligned organizations—the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)—to intervene in defense of the campaign finance limits.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Vice President Vance and the Republican committees, it could dramatically expand the ability of political parties to back their candidates, rolling back decades of federal constraints.

This case is shaping up to be a defining battle in the fight for political speech and could deliver a sweeping victory for constitutional conservatives who have long opposed bureaucratic meddling in the electoral process.