Supreme Court to hear Republican challenge to campaign spending limits
Ryan McGinnis/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear a Republican challenge to limits on federal campaign spending in its next term, which will begin in October.
Congress has capped the amount of money parties and campaign organizations can spend on advertising in direct coordination with the candidates, but the justices will hear arguments on whether those caps are legal.
The case, NRSC v. Federal Elections Commission, centers on whether “coordinated party expenditure” limits are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The court’s decision in the campaign finance dispute could open the floodgates for coordinated spending into the 2026 midterms elections.
National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Rep. Richard Hudson and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Sen. Tim Scott celebrated the Supreme Court taking up the case.
“The government should not restrict a party committee’s support for its own candidates,” they said. “These coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, and we appreciate the Court’s decision to hear our case. Coordinated spending continues to be a critical part of winning campaigns, and the NRCC and NRSC will ensure we are in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.”
Coordinated party expenditure limits for 2025 range from $127,200 to $3,946,100 for Senate races, depending on each state’s voting age population. For House nominees in states with only one representative, the limit is $127,200; and for House nominees in all other states, the limit is $63,600.
The Supreme Court on Monday added seven cases to its docket for next term, with more to be announced later this week. In another high-profile case, Cox Communications v. Sony Entertainment Group, the court will consider questions who bears responsibility for the illicit sharing of copyrighted music over the internet.
(NEW YORK) — A federal judge in Florida denied one of three Justice Department requests to unseal grand jury records tied to federal investigations into Epstein, according to a public order released Wednesday.
The request is one of three made by the Justice Department to judges in New York and Florida seeking to unseal records from federal investigations into Epstein.
According to the order by District Judge Robin Rosenberg, the records the department sought to unseal related to grand juries convened in West Palm Beach in 2005 and 2007 that had investigated Epstein.
Judge Rosenberg faulted the Justice Department for failing to outline sufficient arguments to justify the unsealing of the records, which are normally protected under strict secrecy rules.
Rosenberg’s opinion states her “hands are tied” given existing precedent in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which only permits the disclosure of such grand jury materials under narrow exceptions.
She further denied a request to transfer the issue into the jurisdiction of the Southern District of New York, where two judges are separately mulling over similar motions from the department seeking to unseal grand jury records tied to Epstein and his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the order.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in New York denied Ghislaine Maxwell’s request to review grand jury testimony related to Epstein.
“It is black-letter law that defendants generally are not entitled to access to grand jury materials,” U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer wrote.
Maxwell’s lawyers requested access to the sensitive grand jury records to determine if Maxwell would take a position on the records’ release.
Judge Engelmayer wrote that there is no “compelling necessity” for Maxwell to review the records. An objection from Maxwell into unsealing the records could further complicate the process of potentially releasing the records.
“She has not shown, or attempted to show, that the grand jury materials in her case are apt to reveal any deficiency in the proceedings leading to her indictment,” he wrote.
Judge Engelmayer noted that he plans to “expeditiously” review the transcripts himself and would consider providing an excerpt or synopsis to Maxwell’s lawyers.
Pablo Alcala/Lexington Herald-Leader/Tribune News Service via Getty Image
(WASHINGTON) — Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision.
Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees.
In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses.
More fundamentally, she claims the high court’s decision in Obergefell v Hodges — extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment’s due process protections — was “egregiously wrong.”
“The mistake must be corrected,” wrote Davis’ attorney Mathew Staver in the petition. He calls Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell “legal fiction.”
The petition appears to mark the first time since 2015 that the court has been formally asked to overturn the landmark marriage decision. Davis is seen as one of the only Americans currently with legal standing to bring a challenge to the precedent.
“If there ever was a case of exceptional importance,” Staver wrote, “the first individual in the Republic’s history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it.”
Lower courts have dismissed Davis’ claims and most legal experts consider her bid a long shot. A federal appeals court panel concluded earlier this year that the former clerk “cannot raise the First Amendment as a defense because she is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect.”
Davis, as the Rowan County Clerk in 2015, was the sole authority tasked with issuing marriage licenses on behalf of the government under state law.
“Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis’s rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis’s arguments do not merit further attention,” said William Powell, attorney for David Ermold and David Moore, the now-married Kentucky couple that sued Davis for damages, in a statement to ABC News.
A renewed campaign to reverse legal precedent Davis’ appeal to the Supreme Court comes as conservative opponents of marriage rights for same-sex couples pursue a renewed campaign to reverse legal precedent and allow each state to set its own policy.
At the time Obergefell was decided in 2015, 35 states had statutory or constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Only eight states had enacted laws explicitly allowing the unions.
So far in 2025, at least nine states have either introduced legislation aimed at blocking new marriage licenses for LGBTQ people or passed resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell at the earliest opportunity, according to the advocacy group Lambda Legal.
In June, the Southern Baptist Convention — the nation’s largest Protestant Christian denomination — overwhelmingly voted to make “overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God’s design for marriage and family” a top priority.
Support for equal marriage rights softening While a strong majority of Americans favor equal marriage rights, support appears to have softened in recent years, according to Gallup — 60% of Americans supported same-sex marriages in 2015, rising to 70% support in 2025, but that level has plateaued since 2020.
Among Republicans, support has notably dipped over the past decade, down from 55% in 2021 to 41% this year, Gallup found.
Davis’ petition argues the issue of marriage should be treated the same way the court handled the issue of abortion in its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v Wade. She zeroes in on Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in that case, in which he explicitly called for revisiting Obergefell.
The justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote at the time, referring to the landmark decisions dealing with a fundamental right to privacy, due process and equal protection rights.
“It is hard to say where things will go, but this will be a long slog considering how popular same-sex marriage is now,” said Josh Blackman, a prominent conservative constitutional scholar and professor at South Texas College of Law.
Blackman predicts many members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority would want prospective challenges to Obergefell to percolate in lower courts before revisiting the debate.
The court is expected to formally consider Davis’ petition this fall during a private conference when the justices discuss which cases to add to their docket. If the case is accepted, it would likely be scheduled for oral argument next spring and decided by the end of June 2026. The court could also decline the case, allowing a lower court ruling to stand and avoid entirely the request to revisit Obergefell.
“Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seem wildly uninterested. Maybe Justice Neil Gorsuch, too,” said Sarah Isgur, an ABC News legal analyst and host of the legal podcast Advisory Opinions.
“There is no world in which the court takes the case as a straight gay marriage case,” Isgur added. “It would have to come up as a lower court holding that Obergefell binds judges to accept some other kind of non-traditional marital arrangement.”
Ruling wouldn’t invalidate existing marriages If the ruling were to be overturned at some point in the future, it would not invalidate marriages already performed, legal experts have pointed out. The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act requires the federal government and all states to recognize legal marriages of same-sex and interracial couples performed in any state — even if there is a future change in the law.
Davis first appealed the Supreme Court in 2019 seeking to have the damages suit against her tossed out, but her petition was rejected. Conservative Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred with the decision at the time.
“This petition implicates important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell, but it does not cleanly present them,” Thomas wrote in a statement.
Many LGBTQ advocates say they are apprehensive about the shifting legal and political landscape around marriage rights.
There are an estimated 823,000 married same-sex couples in the U.S., including 591,000 that wed after the Supreme Court decision in June 2015, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School. Nearly one in five of those married couples is parenting a child under 18.
Since the Obergefell decision, the makeup of the Supreme Court has shifted rightward, now including three appointees of President Donald Trump and a 6-justice conservative supermajority.
Chief Justice John Roberts, among the current members of the court who dissented in Obergefell a decade ago, sharply criticized the ruling at the time as “an act of will, not legal judgment” with “no basis in the Constitution.” He also warned then that it “creates serious questions about religious liberty.”
Davis invoked Roberts’ words in her petition to the high court, hopeful that at least four justices will vote to accept her case and hear arguments next year.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to use “heavy force” against “any” protesters at the military parade being held in Washington this weekend.
“We’re going to celebrate big on Saturday,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office right after he spoke about sending the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to quell protests there. “If any protesters want to come out, they will be met with very big force.”
The parade to honor the Army’s 250th anniversary also falls on the president’s 79th birthday and comes just days after Trump ordered troops to Los Angeles to respond to protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.
“People that want to protest will be met with big force,” he said, noting that he hadn’t heard of any plans to protest at the military parade in Washington yet. “But this is people that hate our country. They will be met with heavy force.”
ABC News reached out to the White House for comment on what kind of force Trump was referring to in his comments Tuesday.
Trump has touted the size and anticipated spectacle of the military parade, saying on Monday, “We have many tanks. We have all sorts of new ones and very old ones old from World War I and World War II,” and that the military and the U.S. roles in victories in World War I and World War II need to be celebrated as other countries do with their militaries.
“It’s going to be a parade, the likes of which I don’t know if we’ve ever had a parade like that. It’s going to be incredible,” he said, adding that “thousands and thousands of soldiers” will march through the streets in military garb from various eras of the U.S. military. “We have a lot of those army airplanes flying over the top, and we have tanks all over the place.”
Twenty-eight Abrams tanks, 28 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, 28 Stryker vehicles, and four Paladin self-propelled howitzers will participate in the parade, as will eight marching bands, 24 horses, two mules and a dog.
Fifty aircraft will fly overhead as well.
The U.S. Secret Service and Washington officials said Monday they were tracking nine small protests but that they didn’t expect any violence.
“From a Secret Service perspective, it’s simply people using that first amendment right to protest because we’re not going to do anything with that,” said Matt McCool, the special agent in charge of the Secret Service’s Washington Field Office. “But if that turns violent or any laws are broken, that’s when [the Metropolitan Police Department], Park Police, Secret Service will be involved.”
Still, the National Guard, including the District of Columbia National Guard and those from other states, will be activated but not armed.
Outside of Washington, progressive groups plan to hold protests against the Trump administration as the parade occurs, with the flagship “No Kings” protest occurring in Philadelphia.
ABC News’ Anne Flaherty and Beatrice Peterson contributed to this report.
