NRSC v. FEC (No. 24-621) — coordinated party expenditure limits struck

Thesis

1. 1.NRSC challenges coordinated-party-expenditure limits in 52 USC §30116(d) as First Amendment violations — limits on how much party committees can spend in coordination with their candidates.
2. 2.Roberts Court trajectory on campaign finance has been consistently de-regulatory: Citizens United v FEC (2010, 5-4 strike down corporate-expenditure ban), McCutcheon v FEC (2014, 5-4 strike down aggregate individual contribution limits), FEC v Cruz (2022, 6-3 strike down loan-repayment limit).
3. 3.Current 6-3 conservative majority is more reliable than the 5-4 Citizens United / McCutcheon majority. Alito + Thomas reliably ready to overturn campaign finance precedent; Gorsuch + Kavanaugh + Barrett likely to join with caveats.
4. 4.Critical caveat: Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v FEC (1996) upheld these specific coordinated-expenditure caps. Court would need to either overturn Colorado Republican or distinguish it narrowly.
5. 5.Roberts has shown preference for narrow distinguishing rather than open overruling — institutional-concern pattern as Chief Justice protects Court legitimacy.
6. 6.Most-likely scenario: Court strikes down or significantly narrows coordinated-expenditure caps; opinion authored by Roberts or Kavanaugh narrowly distinguishes Colorado Republican rather than openly overruling.
7. 7.Tail risk: Court declines to reach merits, dismisses as improvidently granted, or remands for further factual development — would technically not 'strike down' but signals direction.
8. 8.70% EHIQ probability reflects: high probability of striking down + meaningful tail risk Roberts writes narrow opinion that preserves Colorado Republican framework. Range 65-78%.