The Supreme Court on Friday rebuffed a challenge to a Federal Communications Commission notice that allowed political parties coordinating with candidates to receive the lowest-unit-charge rate for political advertising through a broadcasting station.
The ruling means that political parties that coordinate with candidates are entitled to favorable broadcast-advertising rates that were previously available only to candidates themselves. The ruling applies equally to both major parties, but because national Republican committees have a significant financial edge over national Democratic committees, the ruling will favor Republicans in midterm campaigning.
The case arose in March 2026, when the FCC issued a notice expanding the entitlement to the LUC requirement from candidates to also include political parties coordinating with candidates. Four Democratic candidates for Congress filed an application for review with the FCC, arguing that only political candidates were entitled to the LUC. Two months later, when the FCC still hadn’t taken action, they filed a petition for review in the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit determined that it had jurisdiction, granted the petition, and set aside the notice.
The Republican party committees then sought a stay at the Supreme Court, and on Friday the Court granted the stay.
The Court ruled that the Fourth Circuit likely lacked jurisdiction, because the FCC hadn’t ruled on the candidates’ application when the Fourth Circuit ruled. The Court also said that the Republican committees would likely suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, because they’d have to pay more for advertising. The Court wrote that this “injury, which implicates their First Amendment rights to speak and coordinate their political activities freely, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, cannot be remedied after the fact through refunds or reimbursements.” (The Court ruled this summer in National Republican Senatorial Committee that FECA’s restriction on a political party’s spending on campaign activities in coordination with candidates violated free speech.)
Justice Jackson wrote the lone dissent. She argued that the Fourth Circuit had jurisdiction under a constructive-denial theory–that the FCC’s delay amounted to a denial of the candidates’ application.