The Supreme Court gave Republicans a win on Wednesday in a court battle over access to favorable broadcast advertising rates. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the court’s decision.
In its per curiam ruling, the high court granted an emergency application for stay filed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to temporarily stay a recent decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision sought to compel the agency to finalize its review of new rules permitting political parties and fundraising committees to qualify for the low-cost ad rates. Prior guidance only permitted candidates to access such rates.
Several Democrat congressional candidates filed a lawsuit challenging the new rules after the FCC announced them in March. These candidates — which includes Senate Democrat candidates Roy Cooper (North Carolina) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) — alleged that the guidance “could have advantaged Republicans, whose party committees tend to raise more money than individual candidates,” as described by Courthouse News.
The 4th Circuit granted Democrats’ request to block the rules in an Aug. 25 order. Upon appeal to SCOTUS, the high court granted the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and National Republican Senatorial Committee’s request to temporarily pause the lower court’s order in early September. The justices ruled that the 4th Circuit likely lacked jurisdiction on the matter, and that the petitioners would likely suffer “irreparable harm” if the lower court’s blockade were left in place.
The same 4th Circuit panel came back with another ruling a month later, in which it ordered the FCC to finalize its guidance within a two-day period. The court reasoned that doing so was “the only means to finally move forward with . . . judicial review” on the matter.
The NRCC and NRSC once again asked the Supreme Court to pause that ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts — who oversees emergency applications from the 4th Circuit — agreed to do so the following day to give the full court time to consider the issue.
The high court said in its Wednesday ruling that the 4th Circuit’s “decision to issue an ‘extraordinary’ writ [of mandamus] was inappropriate under the circumstances.” The majority noted that while the federal Communications Act mandates the FCC to “act on every application it receives,” the law “does not obligate the Commission to act within a particular timeframe.”
“The Commission may exercise its discretion to set its own procedures and schedule for resolving such applications,” the ruling reads. “Undeterred, the Fourth Circuit issued a mandamus order requiring the Commission to issue a final decision on the candidates’ application just five months after it was filed and within just 48 hours — all while the Commission’s deliberation process was still ongoing.”
“Our system of separation of powers does not allow the Judiciary to meddle in ‘the workings of a coordinate branch of the Government’ in this manner,” it added.
Similar to its prior ruling, the Supreme Court went on to note that the FCC would likely suffer “irreparable harm” if the 4th Circuit’s decision were allowed to take effect. The majority highlighted how, in order to comply with the lower court’s order, the FCC would have to “triage its ongoing deliberation process and prepare a final order on an extremely expedited timeline.” “That the mandamus order requires the FCC to abandon its deliberation process is itself an injury that cannot be remedied after the fact,” the court said.
Justices Sotomayor and Jackson did not provide a reason for their dissent.
According to Wednesday’s decision, the 4th Circuit’s order is “stayed pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.” The Supreme Court’s pause will terminate if a petition to SCOTUS is denied by the high court or if SCOTUS agrees to consider the matter and issue a judgment on the merits of the case.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood