Hello, this is RJ Deakin, reading the Supreme Court of United States opinion in National Republican Congressional Committee versus Sherrod Brown on application for stay. September 4th, 2026. And this is a per curium opinion. On March 30th, 2026, the Media Bureau, a division of the Federal Communications Commission, issued a public notice concerning the FCC's lowest unit charge, LUC requirements. Pursuant to those requirements, the 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. That's 47 USC, Section 315, B1 CAPA. The notice stated that political candidates, joint fundraising committees with non-candidate 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 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 interveners. For their part, the FCC, the United States, and the party committees argued that the Fourth Circuit lacked statutory jurisdiction 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 25th, 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 sortiari, and the mandate issued. The party committees now seek a stay from this court. To succeed, they must show one that a reasonable probability that four justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant sortiari, two, a fair prospect that the majority of the court will vote to reverse the judgment below, and three, a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of stay. That's uh citing Hollingsworth versus Perry, uh 2010 per curium. In close cases, we balance the equities and weigh the relative harms to the applicant and to the respondent. 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 the 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. That's 47 USC Section 155C7. It continues that the time within which a petition for judicial review must be filed shall be computed from the date upon which the public notice is given of orders disposing of all applications for for review filed in any case. Um see also 28 USC section 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 may within 60 days after its entry file a petition to review the order in the Court of Appeals wherein the venue lies. The commission, and that was all a um parenthetical. Um the commission is required to resolve every application it receives. That's uh 47 USC section 155C4. The Communications Act thus contemplates that an aggrieved party will file an application for review with the commission, that the commission will resolve that application by order, and that public notice of that order will issue before an aggrieved party may petition for further review in federal court. Because the candidates' application for review was pending when they filed their petition for review, the Fourth Circuit likely lacked statutory jurisdiction to address their challenge. Its holding, to the contrary, splits with every other circuit to have considered the issue. And there's a bunch of sites here, which is uh Council Tree Communications Incorporated versus FCC, which is um CA third, uh Alabama Power Corporation versus FCC, which is CA11, um, International Telecard Association versus FCC, which is CADC, um 1999, and um those are the ones they cited accordingly. The first and second stay factors weigh in favor of granting the application. The party committees have also demonstrated that they will likely suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. They represent that in light of the Fourth Circuit's decision, which the Fourth Circuit likely lacked jurisdiction to issue, broadcasters are already rescinding favorable rates. Current and future rescisions will require the party committees to pay more for advertising space, thereby hampering their efforts to reach the electorate in the critical weeks leading up to the midterms. That injury, which implicates their First Amendment rights to speak and coordinate their political activities freely, uh National Republican Senatorial Committee versus FEC from 2026, slip opinion at seven to ten. Um First Amendment rights to speak and coordinate their political activities freely cannot be remediated after the fact through refunds or reimbursements. Like the first and second stay factors, the third factor thus warrants granting the application. For the foregoing reasons, the application for stay presented to the Chief Justice and by him referred to the court is granted. The mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in case number 26-1785 is recalled and stayed, pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of sortiari. If such a writ is timely sought, should sorti be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event sorti is granted, this day shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this court. It is so ordered. Thank you for listening. Um hopefully the audio quality is pretty good today. I am in um Hamlake, Minnesota, celebrating uh my father's 80th birthday. His name's Al Deakin. He's a pretty cool dude that uh invented a bunch of medical electrical engineering stuff and worked for 3M for 30 years and raised a really great family.