Supreme Court Roundup: As the Supreme Court Term Closes, a Banner Week for the ACLJ

In a powerful trio of rulings handed down in recent days, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered major victories for free speech, constitutional structure, and Fourth Amendment protections. Once again, the Court followed key arguments advanced by the ACLJ in our amicus filings.

These decisions reaffirm that political speech deserves robust protection, that the President must have the authority to supervise the Executive branch, and that the government cannot engage in dragnet surveillance of Americans’ private location data without proper constitutional safeguards. At the ACLJ, we are thrilled. The Supreme Court applied precedent, respected constitutional boundaries, and rejected overreach – exactly the principles we urged in our briefs.

Sign our petition: Stop the Left’s Plot To Destroy the Constitution.

NRSC v. FEC

The Supreme Court delivered a major victory for free speech and political participation in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission. In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down longstanding federal limits on coordinated expenditures by political parties, ruling that such restrictions violate the First Amendment.

Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, held that the Federal Election Campaign Act’s caps on how much parties can spend in coordination with their own candidates unconstitutionally burden core political speech. Campaign spending by parties on behalf of their candidates is protected expression, not something the government can arbitrarily limit.

The ACLJ filed an amicus brief supporting this outcome, arguing that these restrictions improperly stifle political speech and association. The Court’s ruling vindicates our position: Parties have the constitutional right to spend freely to support their candidates, just as individuals and other groups do. This decision removes artificial barriers that had hampered effective political advocacy and reinforces that the First Amendment protects robust political discourse – not just independent expenditures but coordinated efforts by parties that represent millions of Americans.

This is a significant win for electoral integrity and free expression. It ensures that political parties can more effectively communicate their message and support candidates without unconstitutional government interference.

Trump v. Slaughter

The Supreme Court issued a landmark constitutional victory in Trump v. Slaughter, decisively affirming the President’s authority to remove executive officers and members of independent commissions.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that the Constitution vests the President with the power to supervise and remove principal officers who exercise executive power. For-cause removal protections for agencies like the Federal Trade Commission cannot stand when they insulate officials from presidential oversight. The decision recognizes that the President cannot faithfully execute the laws if he lacks the ability to direct – and, when necessary, remove – those carrying out executive functions in his name.

The ACLJ filed a brief defending precisely this constitutional principle. We argued that the separation of powers and the Vesting Clause require presidential control over the Executive branch. The Court’s opinion closely tracks these arguments, rejecting attempts to create a “headless fourth branch” of government that operates beyond democratic accountability.

This ruling restores proper constitutional order. It ensures that the elected President – not unelected bureaucrats with lifetime protections – ultimately directs the enforcement of federal law. It is a huge win for the structure of our government and for the accountability voters expect from their elected leaders.

Chatrie v. United States

The Supreme Court delivered an important victory for Fourth Amendment privacy in Chatrie v. United States, ruling that geofence warrants – which allow law enforcement to obtain location data for potentially hundreds or thousands of cell phones in a broad area – constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.

The Court recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell phone location history. By holding that acquiring this data through a geofence warrant triggers Fourth Amendment protections, the Justices rejected the notion that the government can engage in broad digital dragnets simply because the data sits with a third-party company like Google.

The ACLJ filed in this case to prevent the abuse of geofencing warrants for sweeping surveillance. Our arguments emphasized the dangers of overbroad warrants that capture the movements of innocent Americans with no connection to any crime. While the Court remanded for further proceedings on whether this particular warrant was reasonable, the core holding – that these warrants are searches requiring constitutional scrutiny – directly advances the privacy principles we championed.

This decision sends a clear message: The Fourth Amendment is not a dead letter in the digital age. The government cannot treat Americans’ private location data as fair game for fishing expeditions. It is a meaningful check on law enforcement overreach and a win for the foundational right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects.

Looking Ahead

These three rulings represent another banner week for constitutional principles at the Supreme Court. Free speech in the political arena, presidential authority under Article II, and Fourth Amendment limits on surveillance technology – the Court got them right, and the ACLJ’s arguments helped light the way.

Yet the fight is far from over. The far Left and activist groups continue to push expansive government power, censorship, and erosion of individual rights in courts across the country. With the continued support of our ACLJ members and Champions, we will keep defending life, liberty, and the Constitution at every level.

Stand with us today. Sign our petition: Stop the Left’s Plot To Destroy the Constitution.