The U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 4 granted an emergency stay preserving discounted advertising rates for political party committees through the November midterm elections.

The court issued an unsigned order in the case known as National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) v. Brown. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The NRCC and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) filed an emergency application to freeze a federal appeals court ruling on Aug. 31. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief supporting the application.

The NRCC and NRSC argued the matter was urgent because Sept. 4 is the first day of the 60-day period before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, when federal law requires broadcasters to sell candidates airtime at their cheapest rate.

They had asked the justices to put the appeals court ruling on hold before that window opens. They said if the high court did not do so, they would have to pay full freight for the rest of the campaign cycle, and that stations had already begun to cancel the cheaper reservations they previously made.

The federal Communications Act provides that in the 45 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election, broadcasters must charge legally qualified candidates no more than the lowest rate offered to their most favored customers. This is known as the Lowest Unit Rate rule. The rule does not apply to streaming and social media ads.

In March of this year, the staff of the FCC’s Media Bureau issued an interpretive guidance reminding both television and radio broadcasters about the rule. The public notice reiterated that favorable rates must be provided to “authorized committees that engage in joint fundraising with legally qualified candidates” and to “advertisements that qualify as coordinated expenditures.”

The lawsuit was brought by the respondents—former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio); Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.); former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat; and Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Mich.). Brown, Ossoff, and Cooper are currently running for Senate; Rivet is seeking reelection to the House.

The respondents filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit challenging a March 30 public notice from the FCC’s Media Bureau. The notice told broadcasters the lowest unit charge discount had to be given to political party committees and certain joint fundraising committees, not just candidates themselves.

The candidates argued that the Communications Act requires that the cheap airtime rate be given to candidates, not political parties. They said that when a party buys an ad that a candidate approves, it is the party spending its own money—not the candidate, and if the candidate rate still applied, it would constitute an illegal gift to the candidate’s campaign.

On Aug. 25, a panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled 2–1 that the notice was unlawful.

The panel held that the lowest unit charge applies only to a legally qualified candidate, not to party-coordinated ads and joint fundraising committee ads with non-candidate members. The panel also determined it had jurisdiction, or authority, to hear the case even though the full FCC had not yet completed reviewing the notice.

A dissenting judge said the court should not have reviewed the guidance while it was pending at the FCC and that barring parties from the discount rate restricted political speech on the eve of an election.

The NRCC and NRSC asked the nation’s highest court to stay that judgment.

The Republican committees said the panel rewrote the rules governing broadcast rates for political ads in the middle of the election cycle at the request of Democratic candidates who argued that the rules favored their political adversaries.

The panel’s decision violates two jurisdictional principles and splits with multiple federal courts of appeals, while it “restrict[s] political speech in the sensitive period leading up to an election,” they said.

The Supreme Court said in its new order that the Democratic candidates’ petition for review to the Fourth Circuit was likely premature because they had sued before the FCC had ruled on their request to review the Media Bureau notice.

The high court also said the party committees had demonstrated that they would likely experience irreparable harm if a stay were not granted.

The Supreme Court indicated that its stay was temporary. The court said it froze the Fourth Circuit’s ruling for now to give the Republican committees an opportunity to formally petition the justices to take the case. If the court declines to take it, the freeze ends, and the Fourth Circuit decision becomes effective. If the court agrees to hear it, the freeze lasts until the justices issue a final ruling. The ruling addresses only the jurisdictional question and does not decide the merits of the case itself.

In a one-paragraph dissent, Jackson said she would have denied the stay because the party committees were “not likely to succeed on the merits of their argument that the Fourth Circuit lacked statutory jurisdiction.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said on X that he welcomed the ruling and suggested the Fourth Circuit’s decision was incorrect.

“The Supreme Court has now stayed a lower court ruling that purported to hold that broadcasters are not required to offer the [lowest unit charge] to candidate-party coordinated & [joint fundraising committee] ads,” he said.

In a separate case on June 30, the Supreme Court struck down federal limits restricting political parties from coordinating spending with candidates.

The Epoch Times reached out for comment to the respondents’ attorney, David Robert Fox, of Elias Law Group in Washington. No reply was received by publication time.