In the case of Thompson v. Hebdon (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court examined Alaska's campaign contribution limits, which were challenged by plaintiffs David Thompson and District 18 of the Alaska Republican Party for being too low and thus violating their First Amendment rights to free speech. The Ninth Circuit had previously upheld these limits, citing that they prevented corruption or its appearance in politics. However, the Supreme Court vacated this judgment and remanded it back to lower courts for further consideration in light of a recent precedent set by another case (Randall v Sorrell). This decision implied that there might be constitutional issues with such stringent donation restrictions if they prevent candidates from amassing resources necessary for effective campaigning.

In the dissenting opinion for Thompson v. Hebdon, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the court's decision to strike down Alaska’s campaign contribution limits was premature and not based on a full understanding of the facts. She contended that it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to intervene before lower courts had fully examined all relevant evidence. The justice emphasized that Alaska’s unique political landscape, including its small population and history of political corruption, justified stricter campaign finance laws than might be necessary in other states. She also pointed out that striking down these limits could have far-reaching implications beyond just this case by potentially undermining similar laws across many other states.