Hello, this is RJ Deacon reading the Supreme Court of the United States opinion uh in Federal Communication Commission versus Sherrod Brown and National Republican Congressional Committee versus Sherrod Brown on application for stay. This is October 14th, 2026. It's a per curium opinion. On March 30th, 2026, the Meety Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, issued a public notice about the FCC's lowest unit charge requirements. Those requirements, which are outlined in 47 USC section 315 B1 CAPA, concern favorable rates that broadcasters must charge for campaign advertisements in the weeks leading up to elections. The notice stated that political candidates, joint fundraising committees with non-candidate members, and political parties engaged in coordinated political political activity are entitled to the LUC. Four candidates for Congress filed an application for review with the FCC, arguing that only political candidates are 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 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, seeking the same relief. A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit determined that it had jurisdiction to consider the candidates' challenge, granted their petition, and set aside the public notice. In doing so, the majority reason that the plain text in the legislative history of Section 315 B1 CAPA limits availability of the LUC to political candidates. On September 4, 2026, we granted an application to state the Fourth Circuit's decision. In our percurium opinion, we explain that the commission uh the Communications Act makes clear that the Commission must resolve an application for review by order before an aggrieved party may petition for further review in federal court. That's uh National Republican Congressional Committee versus Brown. Uh slip opinion at two to three. Because the candidates' application for review was pending when the when they filed their petition for uh review, we continued the fourth circuit likely lacked statutory jurisdiction to address their challenge. Uh indeed, the fourth circuit's holding, to the contrary, split with every other circuit to have considered the issue. Um and there is a chain site there that I'm just gonna skip. Um just one month later, on October 7th, 2026, the same Fourth Circuit panel ordered the Commission to resolve the candidates' applications by October 9, 2026. The commission thus had 48 hours from the entry of the Fourth Circuit's Mandamus order to issue its final decision. That, the Fourth Circuit believed, was the only means to finally move forward with judicial review. Um that's application for emergency stay um citation there. Uh the mandamus order came just one week after the commission's comment period on the candidates' application had closed. And in the midst of another comment period for a parallel application, the commission was considering in tandem. The FCC moved before this court to stay the Fourth Circuit's mandamus order on October 8th, 2026. The order was administratively stayed so that the court could resolve the FCC's application before the 48-hour deadline expired. To obtain a stay, the FCC must demonstrate one, that a reasonable probability that four justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant sortiari, and 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 a stay. Um, that's citing Hollingsworth versus Perry from 2010. Uh in close cases, we balance the equities and weigh the relative harms to the applicant and to the respondent. Each of these factors favors the FCC, so we grant the stay. A writ of mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes. Cheney versus United States District Court for DC, um quoting ex parte Fehi from 1947. To obtain a writ of Mandamus, a litigant must demonstrate that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires, and that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable. Together, these prerequisites ensure that Mandamus, one of the most potent weapons in the judicial arsenal, from Will v. ID 95, quoting De Beers Console Mines Limited versus United States from 1945, or to compel an agency to perform a ministerial or non-discretionary act over which the agency has no discretion whatsoever. That's Norton versus Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance from 2004. The Fourth Circuit's decision to issue an extraordinary writ was inappropriate under the circumstances. The Communications Act requires the Commission to act on every application it receives, but it does not obligate the commission to act within a particular time frame. That's 47 USC section one five C4. The Commission may exercise its discretion to set its own procedures and schedule for resolving such applications. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation versus National Resources Defense Council from 1978. Undeterred, the Fourth Circuit issued a mandamus order requiring the Commission to issue a final decision on the candidates' application just five months after it was filed and within just 48 hours, all while the commission's deliberation process was still ongoing. Our system of separation of powers does not allow the judiciary to meddle in the workings of a coordinate branch of the government in this manner. That's uh INS versus legalization assistance project of Los Angeles County, Federation of Labor, uh, 1993. Finally, the FCC will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. As discussed above, the Fourth Circuit's Mandamus Order requires the FCC to issue a final order within just 48 hours of its entry. To comply with the mandamus order, the FCC must triage its ongoing deliberation process and prepare a final order on an extremely expedited timeline. That the mandamus order requires the FCC to abandon its deliberation process is itself an injury that cannot be remedied after the fact. The FCC thus satisfies the stay factors. For the foregoing reasons, the Fourth Circuits Order directing the Commission to abort its deliberative process and issue a final decision on the candidates' application for review in two days is stayed. The application for stay presented to the Chief Justice and by him referred to the court is granted. The October 7th, 2026 judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, case number 26-2230, is stayed pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of sortiary if such writ is timely sought. Should sortiari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event that sortiary is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this court. The related application for stay in NRCC versus Brown, case number 26A477, presented to the Chief Justice and by him referred to the court, is denied as moot. It is so ordered. Justice Sudemeyer and Justice Jackson would deny the applications. Um all right. Well, thanks for listening. Um this is my 30 seconds to be a human being, and I didn't really plan anything. So um in place of advertisements, I'm just being a human being. Anyway, um prison legal project, I think I plugged last time. Hopefully, you guys are doing well. Um reach out, roadscholar80 at gmail.com. If you don't know how to spell it by now, go back. Um