UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE; │ NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE; │ JAMES D. VANCE, Senator; STEVE CHABOT, former │ Representative, > No. 24-3051 Plaintiffs-Appellants, │ │ │ v. │ │ FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., │ Defendants-Appellees. │ ┘

On Certified Question of Constitutional Law Transmitted by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati. No. 1:22-cv-00639—Douglas Russell Cole, District Judge.

Argued En Banc: June 12, 2024

Decided and Filed: September 5, 2024

Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE, CLAY, GIBBONS, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, STRANCH, THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, MURPHY, DAVIS, MATHIS, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Noel J. Francisco, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Jason X. Hamilton, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Noel J. Francisco, John M. Gore, E. Stewart Crosland, Brinton Lucas, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., Sarah Welch, JONES DAY, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants. Jason X. Hamilton, Shaina Ward, Blake L. Weiman, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Charles J. Cooper, Peter A. Patterson, John D. Ohlendorf, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC, Washington, D.C., T. Elliot Gaiser, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, Brett R. Nolan, INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH, Washington, D.C., Tara Malloy, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae. No. 24-3051 Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm., et al. v. FEC, et al. Page 2

SUTTON, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court in which GIBBONS, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, MURPHY, and MATHIS, JJ., joined. THAPAR, J. (pp. 13–24), delivered a separate concurring opinion in which KETHLEDGE, MURPHY, and NALBANDIAN, JJ., concurred. BUSH, J. (pp. 25–44), delivered a separate concurring dubitante opinion. STRANCH, J. (pp. 45–75), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, in which MOORE and CLAY, JJ., concurred in full, and DAVIS and BLOOMEKATZ, JJ., concurred in Parts I and II. BLOOMEKATZ, J. (pg. 76), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment. READLER, J. (pp. 77–103), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

_________________

OPINION _________________

SUTTON, Chief Judge. At issue is whether the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on coordinated campaign expenditures, which restrict political parties from spending money on campaign advertising with input from the party’s candidate for office, violate the First Amendment. In 2001, the Supreme Court held that they do not. FEC v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431, 465. In this action, the plaintiffs argue that the law and facts have changed since 2001, making the Colorado decision no longer binding on lower courts