dictionary

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court announced opinions on campaign finance, Internet copyright law, the First Amendment and immigration law cases on Monday, kicking off the final week of its term.

The court, by a 5-4 margin, upheld Federal Election Commission limits on the amount of money political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate, saying the money, in essence, is a campaign contribution.

"We hold that a party's coordinated expenditures, unlike expenditures truly independent, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of contribution limits," wrote Justice David Souter.

Souter was joined in the majority by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor. Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the members of the court's conservative wing -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- in opposition.

VIDEO CNN's Charles Bierbauer reports on a U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting coordinated expenditures between candidates and parties (June 25) Play video (QuickTime, Real or Windows Media)   FINDLAW Documents concerning recent Supreme Court rulings provided by FindLaw.com Fed. Election Comm'n v. Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 00-191 (FindLaw) Opinion Docket New York Times Co., Inc. v. Tasini, 00-201 (FindLaw) Opinion Docket INS v. St. Cyr, 00-767 (FindLaw) Opinion Docket Calcano-Martinez v. I.N.S., 001011 (FindLaw) Opinion Docket U.S. v. United Foods, Inc. (FindLaw) Opinion Docket Two cases affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court without comment: Hopwood v. State of Texas (5th Circuit) National Rifle Association of America v. Reno (D.C. Circuit)

The ruling in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee overturned a decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down the limits on coordinated expenditures in a dispute between the FEC and the Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee.

The decision is potential boost for supporters of campaign finance reform, even though it is limited to coordinated spending and does not cover so-called "soft money," campaign funds spent by parties of candidate campaigns.

Critics believe "soft money" limits infringe on free speech and are expected to challenge any campaign finance reform measure in court.

Monday's decision, however, shows that a majority of the court believes that limits on contributions are permissible in some circumstances.

Also, the court sided with free-lance writers in an Internet copyright dispute with publishers.

In a 7-2 ruling, justices said free-lance writers had a right to decide whether newspapers and other publishers may reproduce articles sold for print publications in electronic databases or online.

Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens dissented on the ruling, which addressed The New York Times v. Tasini.

The court also let stand a lower court ruling that struck down affirmative action at the University of Texas Law school.

The justices rejected, without comment, the university systems appeal of a ruling in Texas v. Hopwood that found that the system's affirmative action program amounted to "reverse discrimination" against white students.

In other actions, the court:

-- Ruled that forcing mushroom producers to help pay for advertising that promotes the mushroom industry violates the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech.

-- Ruled that some illegal immigrants cannot be deported without a hearing after committing a crime.

-- Rejected a National Rifle Association challenge to the FBI's handling of records collected from gun buyers during instant background checks.