A Russian company that was allegedly involved in 2016 election interference has argued that the case should be dismissed, citing a decision by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, The Washington Post reports.
Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s choice to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote the decision for a three-judge panel that was considering a case involving the role foreign nationals can have in American elections in 2011, Bluman v. Federal Election Commission.
Russian firm Concord Management and Consulting is one of 16 individuals or companies in the country to be indicted by a federal grand jury for participating in a campaign of “information warfare” to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
This week, the company’s attorneys filed a motion repeatedly citing Kavanaugh’s decision to argue that “foreign nationals are not barred from issue advocacy through political speech such as what is described in the indictment — they are only precluded from willfully making expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a particular candidate.”
The decision upheld a federal law stating that foreigners who are in the country temporarily are not allowed to donate money to candidates, political parties, or groups that spend money on advocacy campaigns for or against candidates.
Kavanaugh also said that the government must prove that foreign nationals knew the law’s restrictions before it can seek criminal charges. The decision did not forbid foreigners from spending money on “issue advocacy and speaking out on issues of public policy.”
Andrew D. Herman, an attorney based in Washington who specializes in campaign finance law, told the Post that “based on his opinions and public statements, as a Supreme Court justice Kavanaugh would almost certainly be a reliable vote to overturn campaign finance restrictions in the Scalia/Alito/Roberts mold.”
He added that in his ruling, Kavanaugh “is both being a careful jurist but also indicating to Congress that he would be more skeptical of the types of restrictions referenced in that paragraph. For example, permanent residents’ First Amendment rights might take precedence over more general security concerns.”
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.