For Once, the Supreme Court May Not Give Republicans What They Want

A group of challengers, including the GOP’s Senate campaign-finance arm and Vice President J.D. Vance, argued that the ban violates their First Amendment rights to political speech through campaign spending. “The coordinated party spending limits are at war with this Court’s recent First Amendment cases,” Noel Francisco, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, told the court.

One big question in the case is whether procedural hurdles should prevent the court from deciding the case. “Well, Mr. Francisco, the RNC is not here,” Justice Clarence Thomas told him in his first question of the day. “I think you would have to explain why the groups, the Republican groups here, fit the bill of a national party.” The law does not necessarily apply to the NRSC, which is not structured as a formal political party.

While the FEC is the named defendant in the case, the GOP-controlled commission is also not defending the law’s constitutionality, raising questions about whether there is an actual dispute for the justices to resolve. As a result, the lower courts allowed Democratic lawyers to intervene in the case and the Supreme Court appointed an uninvolved lawyer to defend the law as well.