Docket 26A274
National Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown
DecidedSep 4, 2026
Per Curiamdecision
Source: CourtListener.
Court pauses Fourth Circuit ruling on FCC's low political ad rate policy pending appeal
What it does
The Supreme Court grants a stay that recalls and pauses the Fourth Circuit's mandate, which had set aside an FCC public notice about discounted political advertising rates. The stay stops the Fourth Circuit's ruling from taking effect while the party committees seek certiorari, meaning the FCC's original notice on lowest unit charge rules remains in place for now.
Who benefits
Political party committees and candidates who rely on the FCC's favorable 'lowest unit charge' advertising rates, including the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee, who can continue paying discounted broadcast advertising rates ahead of the midterm elections.
Who is affected
The four Democratic congressional candidates who challenged the FCC notice, whose Fourth Circuit victory is now paused; broadcasters, who must maintain the favorable rate structure rather than rescinding it while the stay is in effect.
Practical impact
Broadcasters must continue offering the FCC's lowest unit charge discounted rates to eligible candidates, party committees, and joint fundraising committees under the original public notice while the stay remains in place. The underlying jurisdictional and merits dispute will proceed through a certiorari petition, with the stay automatically ending if certiorari is denied or upon final Supreme Court judgment if certiorari is granted.
Majority reasoning
The Court applied the standard stay factors: a reasonable probability four Justices would grant certiorari, a fair prospect of reversal, and likely irreparable harm without a stay. On jurisdiction, the Court read the Communications Act to require that an aggrieved party's application for review be resolved by the FCC and public notice of that order be given before a petition for judicial review may be filed in a court of appeals. Because the candidates filed their Fourth Circuit petition while their FCC application was still pending, the Court concluded the Fourth Circuit likely lacked jurisdiction, and noted this holding splits with every other circuit to have addressed the issue. On harm, the Court found that broadcasters were already rescinding favorable rates because of the Fourth Circuit's decision, which would force the party committees to pay more for advertising in the weeks before the midterms, implicating their First Amendment interest in speaking and coordinating political activity, an injury that could not be fixed later through refunds.
Dissent reasoning
Justice Jackson dissented and would have denied the stay, arguing the party committees are not likely to succeed on their jurisdictional argument. She pointed to the Fourth Circuit's own reasoning that jurisdiction existed on a constructive-denial theory, since an agency should not be able to block judicial review through delay or inaction. She also cited precedent explaining that the Supreme Court routinely treats threshold filing requirements as nonjurisdictional procedural rules rather than as limits on a court's power to hear a case, and has never held that a statutory exhaustion requirement of this kind strips a court of jurisdiction.
Constitutional question
Whether the Fourth Circuit had statutory jurisdiction to review a challenge to an FCC public notice while an application for review of that notice was still pending before the FCC itself, and whether a stay of the Fourth Circuit's judgment should issue pending Supreme Court review.