Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case TrackerThe Court, in plain English

By term

October Term 2019 (2019–2020)

63 casesRecap
  • Before Arguments0
  • Awaiting Decision0
  • Decided63
  • Dismissed0
63 of 63 tracked cases in October Term 2019 (2019–2020) have a decision on the record.

Term tracker

Every published case, by stage

Decided Cases

63
DecidedState power on tribal landMcGirt v. OklahomaJimcy McGirt, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, challenged Oklahoma’s authority to prosecute him for crimes committed within the Nation’s historic boundaries. The Supreme Court overturned the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ judgment and held that land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains “Indian country,” meaning federal Indian-law rules apply there.Decided 18-9526DecidedState subpoenas of presidentsTrump v. VanceThis case was about whether a New York grand jury could subpoena President Trump’s personal financial records from his accounting firm while he was in office. The Supreme Court held that the President is not absolutely immune from this kind of state criminal subpoena and that prosecutors do not have to meet a special heightened standard just because the subpoena involves a sitting President.Decided 19-635DecidedPower to fire agency leadersSeila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection BureauThe Supreme Court wiped out the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back to that court (vacated and remanded). The dispute involved the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s demand for information from Seila Law and whether the Bureau’s single-director structure violated constitutional rules dividing government power, or whether its removal protection could be separated from Dodd-Frank.Decided 19-7DecidedOur Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-BerruThe Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses block courts from deciding Agnes Morrissey-Berru’s age-discrimination claim against Our Lady of Guadalupe School because her teaching included important religious functions. The Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded).Decided 19-267DecidedLittle Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. PennsylvaniaThis case was about the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employer health plans cover contraception and whether the federal government could create broad exemptions for employers with religious or moral objections. It also asked whether the Little Sisters of the Poor could continue the appeal to defend those exemptions after lower courts blocked them.Decided 19-431DecidedState power over presidential electorsChiafalo v. WashingtonThis case asked whether Washington could fine presidential electors who broke their pledge and voted for someone other than the candidate who won the State’s popular vote in the 2016 election. The Supreme Court held that states may enforce those pledges and punish so-called faithless electors.Decided 19-465DecidedScholarships for religious schoolsEspinoza v. Montana Dept. of RevenueThis case was about Montana’s tax-credit scholarship program for private school tuition and the state’s decision to bar families from using those scholarships at religious schools. The parents argued that excluding religious schools, and then striking down the whole program because religious schools might benefit, unlawfully discriminated against religion.Decided 18-1195DecidedGeneric .com trademarksPatent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V.The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court (affirmed) that adding “.com” to a generic word does not automatically make the combined name generic. It decided that BOOKING.COM is generic only if consumers understand it as the name of a class of services, not as identifying a particular business.Decided 19-46DecidedForeign groups' speech rightsAgency for Int'l De v. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc.The case asked whether the federal government could require foreign affiliates of U.S.-based aid groups fighting HIV/AIDS abroad to adopt a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking as a condition of receiving federal funds. The Supreme Court held that applying that requirement to those legally separate foreign affiliates is constitutional because foreign organizations operating overseas do not have First Amendment rights.Decided 19-177DecidedHospital rules for abortion doctorsJune Medical Services L. L. C. v. RussoThis case concerned a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Abortion clinics and doctors argued that the law was effectively the same as a Texas law the Supreme Court had already struck down and that it placed an unconstitutional burden on access to abortion.Decided 18-1323DecidedCourt review of fast-track deportationsDepartment of Homeland Security v. ThuraissigiamThe Court overturned the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded). It ruled that the limits on habeas corpus (a prisoner’s challenge to being locked up) review in expedited-removal cases did not violate the Constitution as applied to Thuraissigiam.Decided 19-161DecidedSEC recovery of illegal profitsLiu v. SECThis case asked whether the SEC can make people who violated securities laws give up their ill-gotten gains through disgorgement in a civil enforcement action. The Court held that disgorgement is allowed as equitable relief under federal law, but only when it is limited to a wrongdoer’s net profits and is generally returned to victims.Decided 18-1501DecidedEnding protections for young immigrantsDepartment of Homeland Security v. Regents of Uni v. of Cal.The case concerned the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down DACA, a program that deferred deportation for some immigrants brought to the United States as children. The Supreme Court wiped out part of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, overturned another part, and sent the case back to the lower court (vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded).Decided 18-587DecidedLGBTQ workplace discriminationBostock v. Clayton CountyThe Supreme Court decided that Title VII, a federal employment law, bars an employer from firing someone merely for being gay or transgender because that is discrimination “because of sex.” In Bostock’s case against Clayton County, the Court overturned the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings (reversed and remanded); it separately upheld judgments in two companion cases.Decided 17-1618DecidedPipeline beneath the Appalachian TrailUnited States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Assn.This case was about whether the U.S. Forest Service could allow the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to pass beneath the Appalachian Trail where the trail crosses national forest land in Virginia. The dispute turned on whether land crossed by the Appalachian Trail becomes part of the National Park System, which would block the pipeline right-of-way under the Mineral Leasing Act.Decided 18-1584DecidedDeath penalty lawyer failuresTerence Tramaine Andrus, Petitioner v. TexasThe Court ruled for Andrus, holding that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals used a prejudice standard stricter than the one required by Strickland v. Washington when it rejected his ineffective-assistance claim. The Court vacated the state court’s judgment and sent the case back for a proper assessment of whether his lawyer’s failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence, and to challenge the State’s aggravating case, prejudiced him at sentencing.Decided 18-9674DecidedTransgender workplace discriminationR.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOCAimee Stephens was fired from her job as a funeral director after informing her employer that she intended to transition from male to female. The Supreme Court decided that firing an employee for being transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex.Decided 18-107DecidedThree strikes for prisoner lawsuitsLomax v. Ortiz-MarquezThe Supreme Court ruled that a lawsuit dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim counts as a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. This three-strikes rule prevents inmates from filing federal civil lawsuits without paying filing fees if they have three prior qualifying dismissals.Decided 18-8369Case remandedKnowing you are a felonFurlow v. United StatesFurlow challenged his firearm conviction, arguing jurors should have decided whether he knew he was a felon. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, wiped out the Fourth Circuit’s judgment (vacated it), and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded it) for another look in light of Rehaif; it did not decide whether Furlow gets relief.Remanded 19-7007DecidedPuerto Rico board appointmentsFinancial Oversight and Management Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLCAurelius Investment, LLC challenged President Barack Obama’s appointment of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board members without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court ruled that the Appointments Clause applies to federal officers connected to Puerto Rico but not this primarily local board, overturned the First Circuit’s ruling, and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded).Decided 18-1334DecidedSuing over pension lossesThole v. U. S. Bank N. A.The Supreme Court agreed with the Eighth Circuit and kept in place its decision to throw out Thole and Smith’s claims against U.S. Bank N.A., deciding that they lacked Article III standing (the constitutional legal right to sue). Because their monthly pension payments would be exactly the same whether or not the plan recovered losses they said fiduciary misconduct caused, the Court did not decide whether the federal retirement-benefits law ERISA otherwise allowed their requested remedies.Decided 17-1712DecidedAppeals of torture claimsNasrallah v. BarrThis case asked whether federal appeals courts may review the facts behind an immigration agency’s denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture for a noncitizen facing removal after a criminal conviction. Nasrallah argued that, even if he was removable, the courts could still review whether the agency wrongly rejected his claim that he would likely be tortured if sent to Lebanon.Decided 18-1432DecidedArbitration without signingGE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLCThe case asked whether a company that did not sign an international arbitration agreement could still force arbitration under ordinary state-law contract rules like equitable estoppel. The Supreme Court held that the New York Convention does not bar that result, so nonsignatories may rely on those domestic doctrines when appropriate.Decided 18-1048DecidedPrisoner appeal deadlinesBanister v. DavisThis case asked whether, after a federal court denies a state prisoner’s habeas petition, the prisoner’s timely Rule 59(e) motion asking the court to reconsider its judgment should be treated as part of the same case or as a barred second habeas petition. That classification also determines whether the motion pauses the deadline for filing an appeal.Decided 18-6943Case remandedKnowledge of gun restrictionsLindsey v. United StatesDominic Lindsey challenged the Fifth Circuit’s finding that the trial court’s failure to tell jurors they had to find he knew he was barred from possessing a firearm did not require relief. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, wiped out the appeals court’s judgment (vacated it), and sent it back (remanded it) to reconsider in light of Davis v. United States; it did not decide Lindsey’s claim.Remanded 19-7685DecidedGun rights after involuntary commitmentBeers v. BarrThe Supreme Court agreed to hear Bradley Beers’s case, wiped out the Third Circuit’s judgment (vacated it), and sent the case back (remanded) with instructions to throw it out as moot (no longer a live dispute). It did not decide whether his past commitment could permanently bar him from regaining gun rights.Decided 19-864DecidedDefenses in later lawsuitsLucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc.This case involved a long-running trademark fight between Lucky Brand and Marcel over use of the word "Lucky" on clothing. The Supreme Court held that because the later lawsuit involved different conduct and different claims than the earlier one, Marcel could not stop Lucky Brand from raising new defenses in that later case.Decided 18-1086DecidedGovernment property fraudKelly v. United StatesThis case arose from the New Jersey “Bridgegate” scandal, in which state officials changed traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge to punish the mayor of Fort Lee for refusing to endorse Governor Christie. The Supreme Court held that, although the scheme was abusive and deceptive, it did not violate the federal wire fraud or federal-program fraud laws because it was not aimed at taking the Port Authority’s money or property.Decided 18-1059Case remandedGroundwater pollution permitsKinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. v. Upstate ForeverThe case concerned whether the Clean Water Act requires a federal permit when pollutants released into groundwater later travel into nearby navigable waters. The Supreme Court granted Kinder Morgan’s petition, vacated the Fourth Circuit’s decision, and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of its decision in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund; Kinder Morgan therefore prevailed in the Supreme Court’s disposition, but the Court did not finally resolve the merits of the dispute.Remanded 18-268Case remandedUnanimous jury verdictsVictor v. LouisianaErrol Victor challenged a jury verdict in which not all jurors agreed, arguing that the Constitution requires unanimous verdicts for serious state crimes. The Supreme Court wiped out the Louisiana appeals court’s judgment (vacated it) and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Ramos v. Louisiana; it did not decide Victor’s claim.Remanded 19-5989Case remandedUnanimous jury verdictsAlridge v. LouisianaThe Supreme Court agreed to hear Dajuan Alridge’s challenge, wiped out the Louisiana appeals court’s judgment (vacated it), and sent the case back to that court (remanded) to reconsider it in light of Ramos v. Louisiana. The Court did not decide whether a unanimous jury was required to convict Alridge.Remanded 18-8748Case remandedUnanimous jury verdictsHeard v. LouisianaRobert Lee Heard Jr. challenged his Louisiana conviction because the jury’s verdict was not unanimous. The Supreme Court sent the case back for another look (a grant-vacate-remand order), wiping out the lower court’s ruling and requiring reconsideration in light of Ramos v. Louisiana; it did not decide the issue itself.Remanded 18-9821Case remandedUnanimous jury verdictsNagi v. LouisianaThe Supreme Court granted Nagi’s petition, vacated the Louisiana court’s judgment, and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Ramos v. Louisiana. In Ramos, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts in state criminal trials, so Nagi prevailed in obtaining further review under that ruling.Remanded 18-1585Case remandedUnanimous jury verdictsSheppard v. LouisianaKevin Sheppard challenged Louisiana’s use of a nonunanimous jury verdict in his case. The Supreme Court sent the case back for another look (grant-vacate-remand), wiping out the lower court’s ruling in light of Ramos v. Louisiana without deciding the issue itself.Remanded 18-9693Case remandedUnanimous jury verdictsDick v. OregonThe Court vacated the Oregon Court of Appeals’ judgment against Shaun Dick and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Ramos v. Louisiana. In Ramos, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts to convict a defendant of a serious crime, so Dick prevailed in seeking review of Oregon’s nonunanimous-verdict rule.Remanded 18-9130DecidedUnanimous jury verdictsDyson v. LouisianaThe Court vacated the Louisiana court’s judgment and sent Dyson’s case back for reconsideration in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, which held that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts to convict defendants of serious crimes. Dyson therefore prevailed in having his nonunanimous-verdict conviction reconsidered.Decided 18-8897Case remandedUnanimous jury verdictsCrehan v. LouisianaJace Crehan challenged Louisiana’s use of a nonunanimous jury verdict in his case. The Court wiped out (vacated) the state appeals court’s ruling and sent the case back (remanded) for reconsideration in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, without deciding whether Crehan properly raised the issue earlier.Remanded 18-9787DecidedHandgun transport limitsNew York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New YorkGun owners challenged a New York City rule that barred them from taking a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a second home or shooting range outside the city, arguing that the restriction was unconstitutional. After New York changed the law and the city amended the rule to allow that transport, the Supreme Court held that the request for declaratory and injunctive relief was moot.Decided 18-280Case remandedUnanimous jury verdictsLewis v. LouisianaLewis asked whether the Constitution allows a state conviction for a noncapital crime based on a nonunanimous jury verdict. The Supreme Court granted review, wiped out the Louisiana appeals court’s judgment (vacated it), and sent the case back for another look (remanded) in light of *Ramos v. Louisiana*, without deciding the jury-unanimity question.Remanded 18-7488DecidedCopyright on state law annotationsGeorgia v. Public Resource.Org, Inc.This case determines whether the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated are eligible for copyright protection. The Supreme Court held that under the government edicts doctrine, these annotations are not copyrightable because they are created by legislators in the course of their official duties.Decided 18-1150DecidedPayments to health insurersMaine Community Health Options v. United StatesThis case was about whether the federal government had to pay health insurers money they were owed under the Affordable Care Act’s temporary Risk Corridors program after the insurers lost money on exchange plans. The dispute centered on whether later spending riders blocked or canceled that payment obligation and whether the insurers could sue the government to recover the unpaid amounts.Decided 18-1023DecidedUnanimous jury verdictsBrooks v. LouisianaThe Supreme Court granted review, vacated the Louisiana court’s judgment, and sent Michael Brooks’s case back for reconsideration in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, which held that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts to convict defendants of serious crimes in state court. The ruling favored Brooks because it required Louisiana courts to reconsider his conviction under that rule.Decided 18-9463Case remandedUnanimous jury verdictsJohnson v. LouisianaHoratio Johnson challenged Louisiana’s use of a nonunanimous jury verdict for a serious criminal conviction. The Supreme Court wiped out the Louisiana appeals court’s judgment and sent the case back for another look (a grant-vacate-remand, or GVR) in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, without deciding Johnson’s constitutional claim.Remanded 19-6679Case remandedAppeals over patent review deadlinesSuperior Commc'ns, Inc. v. Voltstar Techs., Inc.Superior Communications and Voltstar Technologies disputed whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to start a patent review could be appealed when the review petition’s compliance with a one-year deadline was at issue. The Supreme Court wiped out the Federal Circuit’s judgment (vacated it) and sent the case back for another look (remanded) in light of Thryv, without deciding that appealability question.Remanded 18-1027DecidedGroundwater pollution permitsCounty of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife FundThe Supreme Court said the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollution from Maui County’s wastewater facility, a specific point source, reaches protected waters through groundwater if that route is essentially the same as a direct discharge. It wiped out the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back to apply that test (vacated and remanded), without deciding whether Maui actually needed a permit.Decided 18-260DecidedDeportation relief after crimesBarton v. BarrThe case asked when a lawful permanent resident loses eligibility to ask an immigration judge to cancel removal after committing certain crimes. The Court held that if the person committed an offense listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) during the first seven years of residence, that offense triggers the stop-time rule and can bar cancellation of removal even if the person was not seeking admission to the United States.Decided 18-725DecidedPatent review deadlinesThryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LPThis case was about whether federal courts can review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to start an inter partes review when the Board finds that the patent challenge was not filed too late under the one-year time limit in federal patent law. The dispute arose after the Board instituted review of Click-to-Call’s patent and later canceled claims, and Click-to-Call argued the review should never have been started because the petition was time-barred.Decided 18-916DecidedEPA approval for landowner cleanupAtlantic Richfield Co. v. ChristianMontana landowners sued Atlantic Richfield over contamination from the Anaconda smelter, seeking restoration work at a Superfund site with an Environmental Protection Agency cleanup plan. The Supreme Court let Montana courts hear the suit but decided the landowners were potentially responsible parties under CERCLA and needed EPA approval before the requested cleanup; it vacated (wiped out) the contrary ruling and remanded (sent the case back to the state court).Decided 17-1498DecidedShip safety guaranteesCITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co.In a dispute over a tanker’s charter agreement, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court and ruled that an unqualified safe-berth clause requires CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. to provide a safe place for Frescati Shipping Co.’s ship. The clause creates a warranty of safety (a binding promise that the berth will be safe), not merely a duty to use due diligence.Decided 18-565DecidedInsanity defense lawsKahler v. KansasThis case asked whether Kansas could limit the insanity defense so that mental illness could negate criminal intent, but could not excuse a defendant who understood what he was doing yet could not tell right from wrong. The Supreme Court upheld Kansas’s law, ruling that the Constitution does not require states to adopt a traditional moral-capacity insanity defense.Decided 18-6135DecidedProof of race discriminationComcast Corp. v. National Assn. of African-American Owned MediaThis case asked what a business must prove to sue for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 after Comcast refused to carry channels owned by an African-American-owned media company. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff must show that race was the but-for cause of the injury, not just that race played some role in the decision.Decided 18-1171DecidedFactual errors on appealDavis v. United StatesThe Court agreed to hear Charles Earl Davis’s challenge over whether factual errors can be reviewed under the plain-error rule, which lets an appeals court correct certain errors not raised at trial. It wiped out the Fifth Circuit’s judgment (vacated it) and sent the case back for further proceedings (remanded), without deciding whether Davis met that rule.Decided 19-5421DecidedCopyright suits against statesAllen v. CooperFrederick Allen and Nautilus Productions claimed that North Carolina infringed their copyrights in photographs and videos of a historic shipwreck. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court (affirmed its ruling) that Congress’s Copyright Remedy Clarification Act did not remove states’ immunity from copyright-infringement suits.Decided 18-877DecidedImmigration law and state prosecutionsKansas v. GarciaKansas prosecuted several unauthorized workers for identity theft and related state crimes after they used other people’s Social Security numbers on job and tax forms. The case is about whether federal immigration law blocks states from bringing those prosecutions because the conduct overlaps with the federal employment-verification system.Decided 17-834DecidedRetirement plan lawsuit deadlineIntel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. SulymaThis case asked when the three-year deadline for bringing an ERISA fiduciary-breach claim begins to run. The Court held that a plaintiff does not have the required "actual knowledge" just because plan disclosures were made available to him if he did not read them or cannot remember reading them.Decided 18-1116DecidedAppealing a long sentenceHolguin-Hernandez v. United StatesThis case asked whether a criminal defendant preserves a challenge to an allegedly too-long sentence simply by arguing for a shorter sentence in the trial court, or whether he must also formally object after the sentence is announced. The Supreme Court held that arguing for a shorter sentence is enough to preserve appellate review of the sentence’s substantive reasonableness.Decided 18-7739DecidedA child's usual homeMonasky v. TaglieriIn a dispute between Michelle Monasky and Domenico Taglieri over their infant daughter’s return to Italy under the Hague Convention, the Supreme Court left the Sixth Circuit’s judgment in place (affirmed it). It decided that a child’s habitual residence (the country where the child normally lives) depends on all the circumstances, not necessarily a parental agreement, and that an appeals court should overturn a trial court’s finding only for clear error (a clear mistake).Decided 18-935DecidedWho owns a tax refundRodriguez v. FDICThe Supreme Court ruled that the federal “Bob Richards” rule cannot decide who owns a tax refund paid to an affiliated corporate group because no uniquely federal interest justifies it. It wiped out the Tenth Circuit’s ruling and sent Rodriguez’s dispute with the FDIC back for further proceedings (vacated and remanded), without deciding who ultimately owns the refund.Decided 18-1269DecidedDeath penalty resentencingMcKinney v. ArizonaThis death penalty case asked what Arizona had to do after a federal habeas court ruled that the state had failed to properly consider James McKinney’s mitigating evidence, including his PTSD, at sentencing. The issue was whether the Arizona Supreme Court could fix that error by reweighing the aggravating and mitigating evidence itself, or whether McKinney had to receive a new jury sentencing proceeding under current law.Decided 18-1109DecidedChurches as one legal entityRoman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico, Petitioner v. Yali Acevedo Feliciano, et al.The dispute involving Yali Acevedo Feliciano and others concerned whether Puerto Rico courts could treat the Catholic Church in Puerto Rico, the Archdiocese of San Juan, the Superintendent of Catholic Schools, and Catholic academies as one legal entity. The Supreme Court wiped out (vacated) the Puerto Rico Supreme Court’s judgment and sent the case back to that court (remanded) for further proceedings, without finally deciding whether the organizations were one entity or whether the First Amendment limited that inquiry.Decided 18-921DecidedAppeals over bankruptcy pausesRitzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLCThis bankruptcy case arose after a creditor tried to continue its breach-of-contract lawsuit against a company that had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Supreme Court considered whether a bankruptcy court’s order denying relief from the automatic stay is a final order that must be appealed right away.Decided 18-938DecidedPatent office legal costsPeter v. NantKwest, Inc.This case asked whether a patent applicant who sues the Patent and Trademark Office in federal district court after losing before the agency must also pay the PTO’s attorney and paralegal salaries as part of the proceeding’s expenses. The Supreme Court held that the Patent Act does not let the PTO recover those legal personnel costs.Decided 18-801Case remandedCampaign donation limitsThompson v. HebdonThis case challenged Alaska’s very low campaign contribution limits, which restrict how much individuals can give each year to candidates and certain political groups. The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding those limits and sent the case back for reconsideration under the Court’s First Amendment campaign-finance precedents.Remanded 19-122