On December 9, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments concerning a challenge to campaign finance restrictions initiated by JD Vance, the Vice President of the United States, and former Congressman Steve Chabot. This case seeks to overturn spending limits that have been in place since the 1970s, which restrict how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. The plaintiffs argue that these spending limits infringe upon First Amendment rights to free speech.

Vance, who filed the lawsuit while serving as a U.S. Senator from Ohio, now holds significant influence over party finances as both Vice President and finance chair of the Republican National Committee. The National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee have also joined the case. During the proceedings, attorney Noel Francisco, representing Vance and the Republican committees, contended that existing limits on coordinated party spending are ineffective at preventing corruption, citing the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, which invalidated restrictions on aggregate contributions to political campaigns.

The justices raised questions about the implications of the case, particularly regarding Vance's current status as Vice President and whether the case remains relevant. Francisco maintained that Vance's Senate fundraising committee is still operational and that many vice presidents have historically pursued presidential campaigns. A key issue discussed was whether removing coordination limits would facilitate bribery by affluent donors. Current federal law restricts coordinated spending between parties and campaigns, with limits varying based on state population. Individual contributions to campaigns are capped at $3,500 per election, while donations to national party committees can reach up to $44,300 annually. Critics argue that without these limits, wealthy donors could circumvent individual contribution caps by funneling money through party committees.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited historical instances of corruption, such as the dairy industry's financial support for President Nixon, to illustrate potential risks associated with lifting these limits. She also referenced the influence of significant donors like Elon Musk, who has substantial federal contracts, raising concerns about the intersection of corporate power and political influence. In defense of the limits, attorneys Roman Martinez and Marc Elias, representing the Federal Election Commission and Democratic Party committees, argued that previous court rulings have established the necessity of these restrictions to prevent corruption. They highlighted evidence showing how political parties can act as conduits for wealthy donors seeking to influence candidates and policy outcomes.

The Democratic attorneys contended that the absence of recent corruption examples does not indicate the effectiveness of the law, but rather that the law is functioning as intended. They warned that removing coordinated expenditure limits could undermine existing safeguards against corruption and create new avenues for evasion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could lead to further challenges against other campaign finance limits, suggesting a potential incremental strategy to dismantle existing regulations. The justices did not indicate how they might rule, although the court's conservative majority has historically been skeptical of campaign finance restrictions. The more liberal justices expressed significant concerns about corruption and the erosion of campaign finance safeguards.

In a separate case, the Supreme Court is also deliberating on President Donald Trump's authority to impose tariffs without congressional approval, a practice he has utilized extensively since taking office. Critics argue that these tariffs contribute to inflation and hinder American businesses by limiting access to necessary materials. Furthermore, they contend that Trump's tariff policies have strained relationships with traditional allies, potentially undermining strategic partnerships. The court's deliberations have revealed a division among justices, with some expressing concern over the extent of presidential power in matters traditionally reserved for Congress.

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to impose tariffs, yet Trump has invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify his actions. During oral arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch raised questions about the implications of allowing the president to unilaterally impose taxes, referencing historical disputes over taxation that were pivotal to the American Revolution. Despite Trump's assertions that tariff revenues amount to trillions of dollars, actual figures from the Treasury Department indicate significantly lower earnings, with approximately $195 billion collected in the last fiscal year and around $31 billion in the current fiscal year. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching effects on U.S. trade policy and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

Common Cause, a non-partisan organization advocating for government reforms, stated that the campaign finance case could weaken fundamental protections against corruption and increase the influence of money in politics. A decision from the Supreme Court is anticipated by the end of June.