Thompson v. Hebdon
The Supreme Court sent Alaska's campaign contribution limits back to the lower court, ruling that the Ninth Circuit was wrong to ignore the Court's earlier Randall v. Sorrell decision when it upheld the limits.
Alaska's $500 cap on individual contributions to candidates is one of the lowest in the country and has several features the Court previously flagged as warning signs of an unconstitutionally restrictive limit, so the appeals court must take another look.
How it got here: A federal trial court upheld Alaska's contribution limits, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and the donors asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Two Alaska residents wanted to contribute more than the state's $500 annual limit allowed to political candidates and election-related groups. They sued state election officials, arguing the contribution caps violated their First Amendment right to support candidates and causes of their choice.
The question before the Court
Did a federal appeals court need to apply the Supreme Court's Randall v. Sorrell decision when it upheld Alaska's low campaign contribution limits?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Ninth Circuit should have applied Randall v. Sorrell, the Court's last decision addressing an individual contribution limit, instead of relying solely on older circuit precedent. The Court did not decide whether Alaska's limit is unconstitutional; it only found that the appeals court used the wrong framework and must reconsider the limits under Randall.
The Court pointed to several features of Alaska's law that resembled the "danger signs" identified in Randall: the limit is unusually low compared to limits the Court has upheld elsewhere, it is more restrictive than nearly every other state's limit for similar offices, and it has not been adjusted for inflation in over two decades. Because these warning signs were present, the case goes back for the lower court to weigh whether Alaska has a special justification for such a low limit.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Alaska candidates, donors, and election officials now face renewed uncertainty over how much individuals can give to campaigns while the courts sort out whether the $500 limit survives First Amendment scrutiny. The ruling also signals to other states and appeals courts that they cannot bypass Randall v. Sorrell's guidance when reviewing low contribution caps.
What changes now
The case returns to the Ninth Circuit, which must reconsider whether Alaska's contribution limits survive First Amendment scrutiny in light of Randall v. Sorrell. This is not a final ruling on whether the limits are constitutional — that question remains open for the lower courts to resolve, potentially after further fact-finding on Alaska's justifications for its low limit.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether Alaska's $500 contribution limit actually violates the First Amendment. It only held that the Ninth Circuit used the wrong legal framework by ignoring Randall v. Sorrell, leaving the ultimate constitutionality question for the lower court to decide on remand.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Ginsburg
Justice Ginsburg agreed with sending the case back under Randall but wrote separately to note that Alaska's law lacks some of the troubling features found in Vermont's law, such as favoring political parties over individuals. She suggested Alaska's small legislature and heavy reliance on the oil and gas industry could make it especially vulnerable to corruption, potentially supplying the special justification Randall requires for a low contribution limit.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court identified that Randall v. Sorrell, a 2006 case addressing when an individual campaign contribution limit is set so low that it burdens First Amendment rights, supplies the relevant framework and that the Ninth Circuit had declined to apply it, relying instead on older circuit precedent from before Randall was decided.
- The Court noted that ten other circuits had correctly looked to Randall when reviewing similar campaign finance restrictions, suggesting the Ninth Circuit's approach was an outlier.
- Applying Randall's 'danger signs' framework, the Court compared Alaska's $500 limit to the lowest contribution limit it had previously upheld (translating to over $1,600 today) and found Alaska's limit substantially lower.
- The Court compared Alaska's limit to those of other states and found it more restrictive than nearly every comparable state limit, including for the offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor.
- The Court observed that Alaska's limit has not been adjusted for inflation in 23 years, a factor Randall identified as making an already-low limit increasingly burdensome over time.
- Because these danger signs were present and the parties disputed whether Alaska had offered a special justification for such a low limit, the Court concluded the lower court needed to reexamine the limits under the Randall framework rather than the standard it had used.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Randall v. Sorrell (548 U. S. 230)
Reaffirmed as the controlling framework for reviewing low individual campaign contribution limits.