WASHINGTON
September 4, 2026 · 07:00 UTC
National Republican Committee v. Brown
“[t]he charges made for the use of any broadcasting station
by any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any
public office in connection with his campaign”
Overview
1Cite as: 609 U. S. (2026)
Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 26A274
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. SHERROD
BROWN, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[September 4, 2026]
PER CURIAM.
On March 30, 2026, the Media Bureau, a division of the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), issued a
“public notice” concerning the FCC’s lowest unit charge
(LUC) requirements. Pursuant to those requirements,
“[t]he charges made for the use of any broadcasting station
by any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any
public office in connection with his campaign” must be set
at favorable rates known as the “lowest unit charge” in the
weeks leading up to primary and general elections. 47
U. S. C. §315(b)(1)(A). The notice stated that political candidates, joint fundraising committees with noncandidate
members, and political parties engaged in coordinated political activity were all entitled to the LUC subject to certain
conditions.
On April 29, 2026, four Democratic candidates for Congress filed an application for review with the FCC, arguing
that only political candidates were entitled to the LUC and
asking the full Commission to set aside the public notice as
unlawful. Two months later, while their application was
still pending before the Commission, the candidates filed a
petition for review against the FCC and the United States
in the Fourth Circuit seeking the same relief. With the
LUC requirements scheduled to take effect on September 4,
2026 ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, the Fourth
2 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEE v. BROWN
Per Curiam
Circuit expedited briefing and oral argument. It also allowed the National Republican Congressional Committee
and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (collectively, the party committees) to participate as intervenors.
For their part, the FCC, the United States, and the party
committees argued that the Fourth Circuit lacked
to consider the petition for review while the
candidates’ application for review was still pending before
the Commission. They also defended the notice on the merits.
On August 25, 2026, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit
concluded that it had jurisdiction, granted the candidates’
petition for review, and set aside the public notice. The
Fourth Circuit then denied the party committees’ motion
for a stay pending disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari, and the mandate issued.
The party committees now seek a stay from this Court.
To succeed, they must show “(1) a reasonable probability
that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari; (2) a fair prospect that a majority
of the Court will vote to reverse the judgment below; and
(3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the
denial of a stay.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190
(2010) (per curiam). In close cases, we “balance the equities
and weigh the relative harms to the applicant and to the
respondent.” Ibid. We grant the application.
On the first two factors, the Communications Act makes
clear that an aggrieved party must wait for the Commission
to resolve its application for review by order before filing a
petition for judicial review. To start, the Act provides that
“[t]he filing of an application for review. shall be a condition precedent to judicial review of any order, decision,
report, or action made or taken pursuant to a delegation.”
47 U. S. C. §155(c)(7). It continues that “[t]he time within
which a petition for [judicial] review must be filed. shall
be computed from the date upon which public notice is given
3Cite as: 609 U. S. (2026)
Per Curiam
of orders disposing of all applications for review filed in any
case.” Ibid.; see also 28 U. S. C. §2344 (“On the entry of a
final order reviewable under this chapter, the agency shall
promptly give notice thereof by service or publication in accordance with its rules. Any party aggrieved by the final
order m
Short history
The lowest unit charge rule for political ads on broadcast stations took effect in 47 U.S.C. §315(b)(1)(A) decades ago. It requires stations to sell airtime to legally qualified candidates at the lowest rate the station charged any advertiser in the same period in the 45 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. The FCC’s Media Bureau issued a public notice on March 30, 2026 that extended those rates to joint fundraising committees with non-candidate members and to party committees engaged in coordinated activity.
Four Democratic congressional candidates asked the full FCC to overturn the notice. While that application sat unanswered, they filed a petition for review in the Fourth Circuit. The court took the case, allowed the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee to intervene, heard the matter on an expedited schedule, and on August 25, 2026 set the notice aside. The Fourth Circuit then denied a stay and issued its mandate.
The Republican committees applied to the Supreme Court for a stay pending certiorari. On September 4, 2026 the Court granted the stay. It held that the Communications Act makes exhaustion of the FCC application for review a condition precedent to judicial review.
Constitutional analysis
The Supreme Court stayed a Fourth Circuit ruling that had thrown out an FCC public notice on lowest unit charge rates for political ads. The notice let candidates, joint fundraising committees, and parties engaged in coordinated activity buy broadcast time at the lowest rate in the final weeks before elections under 47 U.S.C. §315(b)(1)(A). Democratic candidates challenged it at the FCC and then in court before the agency finished its review. The Fourth Circuit took the case anyway, sided with the candidates, and blocked the notice just days before the rates were set to apply for the midterms.
The Court held that the Communications Act requires parties to wait for the full Commission to act on an application for review before any court can step in. Section 155(c)(7) makes that application a condition precedent to judicial review, and the time to file a petition runs only from public notice of the order that disposes of all such applications. This tracks the basic constitutional design of limited federal power: Congress sets the rules for when and how agencies and courts do their jobs, and courts must respect those limits instead of rushing in.
The founders built government first to secure the rights of life, liberty, and property so citizens could live in peace under known laws. Federalist 78 explains that courts have “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment,” and must take the law as they find it rather than invent shortcuts. The Decision of 1789 and the First Congress’s careful structuring of executive departments show the same concern for keeping each branch inside its lane. Here the statute drew a clear line; the Fourth Circuit crossed it. The stay restores that line until the Supreme Court can hear the case.
Predictive model
The Supreme Court stayed the Fourth Circuit's August 25 ruling that threw out the FCC's March 30 public notice on lowest unit charge rates. The stay rests on the Communications Act requiring an FCC order on the pending Democratic candidates' application for review before any court can step in. Party committees now have the notice back in force for the September 4 start of the election window.
This fight stays alive at least until the FCC finishes its review and issues a final order. From there the losing side will likely file a fresh petition for review in the Fourth Circuit or D.C. Circuit. The case reaches the Supreme Court on the merits only if the circuits produce a split or the Court grants cert on the statutory timing question.
The stay holds until the Court either denies cert or decides the case after full briefing. No other federal court has ruled on this exact LUC notice yet.
Horizon: through the 2026 midterms at minimum, with a fresh petition for review likely by late fall.