Key facts
- The Supreme Court ordered broadcast TV stations to offer their lowest ad rates to political parties and joint fundraising committees.
- This decision impacts the 'lowest unit charge' (LUC) law, which mandates discounted ad prices for political candidates.
- The ruling was a stay of a Fourth Circuit decision that had favored Democratic candidates.
- The Supreme Court's decision was per curiam, meaning at least five justices agreed, but individual votes were not disclosed.
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the majority opinion.
The Supreme Court issued an order requiring broadcast TV stations to offer their lowest ad rates to political parties and joint fundraising committees, a decision that could significantly impact campaign spending. This ruling came in response to a petition filed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee, challenging a Federal Communications Commission public notice that extended the 'lowest unit charge' (LUC) discount to these groups.
The LUC law mandates that stations offer their lowest ad prices to legally qualified candidates. The core legal question was whether this discount also applies to ads purchased on behalf of candidates by parties and joint fundraising committees. The FCC had issued a notice supporting this interpretation, but four Democratic candidates contested it, winning at the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appellate court found the FCC notice contradicted the plain language of the law.
However, the Supreme Court granted an emergency stay, effectively blocking the Fourth Circuit's ruling. The high court did not rule on the merits of the case but stated that the lower court should not have intervened before the FCC made a final decision on the candidates' challenge. This stay is particularly impactful as it comes just before a 60-day pre-election period where stations are legally required to offer discounts to individual candidates.
FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez expressed concern that the ruling, combined with a previous Supreme Court decision lifting limits on coordinated campaign spending, could lead to a surge of 'dark money' from wealthy donors, with broadcasters absorbing the cost. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, criticizing the potential for agency inaction to thwart judicial review and quoting precedent that exhaustion requirements are often non-jurisdictional.
The Democratic candidates who challenged the FCC order included Sherrod Brown, Jon Ossoff, Roy Cooper, and Kristen McDonald Rivet. They argued that the FCC's inaction constituted a 'constructive denial,' giving the Fourth Circuit jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, found that the candidates' application for review was still pending before the FCC, likely divesting the appellate court of jurisdiction.