MAJOR VICTORY: Supreme Court Rejects Far Left’s Attempt To Silence Political Speech in NRSC v. FEC

The U.S. Supreme Court just handed down a massive victory for the First Amendment – and delivered a stinging rebuke to the far Left, which tried to use an outdated 2001 precedent to gag political parties and rig the rules of public debate.

In a 6-3 decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Court struck down the FEC’s limits on coordinated party expenditures. These restrictions – long defended by the far Left as some kind of anti-corruption shield – were nothing more than a blatant attempt to limit how effectively parties could support their own candidates.

This ruling is a direct rejection of the strategy we warned about months ago: the far Left seeking to silence disfavored political speech by clinging to the discredited Colorado II precedent.

At the ACLJ, we filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court exposing exactly this tactic. We argued that lower courts had no business propping up “zombie precedents” that conflict with the Court’s modern First Amendment cases. As we wrote:

That reading of Rodriguez is mistaken. . . . To [require explicit overruling] is not fidelity to precedent but defiance of this Court itself—forcing this Court to catalogue the cases it discards in every opinion and leaving “zombie precedents” to distort the law long after they have been rejected in substance. Such a regime undermines doctrinal coherence, wastes judicial resources, and erodes this Court’s authority.

The Sixth Circuit had essentially admitted that Colorado II was obsolete under today’s jurisprudence – which limits speech restrictions to preventing only quid pro quo corruption or its appearance – but refused to act because the old case hadn’t been explicitly overruled. That kind of judicial paralysis is exactly what the far Left was counting on.

The DNC even jumped into the case as intervenors, desperately trying to preserve these speech-stifling rules after the FEC itself largely declined to defend them. It was a transparent partisan move: Use outdated campaign finance law as a weapon to limit how much parties can coordinate with candidates and amplify their message.

The Supreme Court saw through it.

Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion made clear that these limits fail “‘closely drawn’ scrutiny.” They are disproportionate and unnecessary when earmarking rules and strong disclosure requirements already exist to prevent circumvention. Political parties have a fundamental right to coordinate with their candidates – just as the First Amendment protects robust political debate from government interference.

This is a huge win for free speech. It rejects the notion that coordination between a party and its nominees is somehow corrupt. It stops the government from acting as speech police over core political activity. And it puts an end to the far Left’s efforts to weaponize a 25-year-old precedent to silence voices it doesn’t like.

As we said when this fight reached the Supreme Court, the far Left sought to silence with an outdated precedent. Today, the Court said no more.

At the ACLJ, we’re proud that our brief helped focus the Court on the critical stare decisis issues and the broader assault on political speech. This victory builds on our long record of defending the First Amendment – whether it’s protecting religious liberty, parental rights, or the people’s right to robust political debate.

The Left will keep looking for new ways to restrict speech and control the flow of political ideas. But today’s decision is a powerful reminder that the Constitution still protects the fundamental right to engage in political speech without government gag orders.

If you believe in defending free speech against partisan attempts to silence it, stand with the ACLJ today. Share this victory and let others know: the First Amendment won today.

Sign the petition: Restore the Constitution. Don’t Shred It.