Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. ("WRTL"), a nonprofit advocacy group, sought to run ads asking voters to contact their Senators and urge them to oppose filibusters of judicial nominees.

WRTL argued that the proposed ads addressed a current issue pending in Congress and did not advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.

The decision of the Court, authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, is notable not only for its holding, affirming the lower court, but for its strong language (repeatedly referring to BCRA's prohibition as the "blackout" period; rebuking calls for greater regulation of political speech by declaring "Enough is enough"; and concluding "we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship") and for demonstrating a skepticism of campaign finance regulation that was absent in McConnell.

Although, in theory, the opinion left BCRA's prohibition on "electioneering communications" standing and conformed with McConnell v. FEC, for most practical purposes, it cut deeply into the law, reverting it to its pre-McConnell state in which only speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate could be constitutionally subject to limits and prohibitions on financing.

The rest of the majority consisted of Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, who would have gone further and simply reversed McConnell outright.

Although "WRTL II," as the case is generally called, remains an important marker in First Amendment campaign finance jurisprudence, as a practical matter, it has been largely superseded by the Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.