Cruz was reimbursed $10,000 which is the remainder of the money he loaned himself during the 2018 election campaign. He filed a lawsuit to challenge the law, won in a lower court and the US government appealed, which is why his case ended being considered by the Supreme Court.
"The First Amendment 'has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office,'" Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "It safeguards the ability of a candidate to use personal funds to finance campaign speech, protecting his freedom 'to speak without legislative limit on behalf of his own candidacy.' This broad protection … 'reflects our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.'"
Cruz challenged the federal rule with Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, saying the majority believes that only corruption or the appearance of such would justify campaign finance limits.
"We greet the assertion of an anti-corruption interest here with a measure of skepticism," Roberts explained.
In scathing dissent, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Elena Kagan criticized the ruling, saying it removes a law specifically designed to prevent corruption.
"Repaying a candidate’s loan after he has won election cannot serve the usual purposes of a contribution: The money comes too late to aid in any of his campaign activities," Kagan wrote. "All the money does is enrich the candidate personally at a time when he can return the favor — by a vote, a contract, an appointment. It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption."