ℹ️ Informational only. This site aggregates public news and does not provide legal or immigration advice. Always verify with USCIS.gov or travel.state.gov. Full disclaimer →

StatusWire
← Back to feed
General U.S. NewsAug 27, 2026·3 min read·🔥 High relevance

GOP heads to Supreme Court after losing case over TV election ad prices

A

Ars Technica

arstechnica.com
6d ago
GOP heads to Supreme Court after losing case over TV election ad prices

Summary

Republican campaign committees want the Supreme Court to mandate lower prices for election commercials on broadcast TV stations. The committees submitted an emergency motion for a stay and asked the 4th Circuit to rule on that motion immediately so they can file a petition to the Supreme Court. “Intervenors respectfully request that the Court rule on this stay motion as soon as possible—whether by expediting or waiving response briefs—to permit Intervenors to seek emergency relief at the Supreme Court,” Republican committees told the court. The court responded quickly, issuing an order today to deny the Republican committee’s motion and to immediately issue a mandate that can be appealed to the Supreme Court. The FCC repealed this ownership rule even though the 39 percent figure was specified by Congress in a 2004 law, paving the way for another court battle over the limits of FCC authority. From a legal perspective, all the cases are decided based on interpretations of what Congress meant when it put specific words and phrases into US law. A potential problem for Republicans is that the FCC position contradicts agency guidance from 1991 and a statement made to the Supreme Court last year by the Trump administration’s own solicitor general. In the recent Supreme Court case over spending limits, US Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in a filing that the “rules require broadcasters to charge low rates for candidate spending, but not for party spending—whether coordinated or independent.” But Republicans have reason for optimism given the conservative makeup of the Supreme Court and the 4th Circuit dissent from Judge J. The 4th Circuit judges decided they have jurisdiction because the FCC’s failure to act on a petition filed by Democratic candidates amounted to a “constructive denial.” Wilkinson disagreed on that count, too, saying the FCC guidance is not a final order because the FCC is still reviewing the candidates’ application. If the Supreme Court does act quickly in the GOP’s favor, it could stay the 4th Circuit court mandate on the grounds that the FCC order isn’t final and can’t be appealed yet. The Republican committees told the 4th Circuit to be wary of recent Supreme Court guidance. “Just two days ago, the Supreme Court reminded lower courts that they should not interfere with agency decision-making before it is final,” they wrote, referring to a ruling in Trump’s favor on vote-by-mail restrictions. “This Court should heed that instruction, and stay its order (or the mandate) pending a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.”

From the source

Republican campaign committees want the Supreme Court to mandate lower prices for election commercials on broadcast TV stations. If the court agrees, broadcasters would be forced to offer their lowest ad prices to political parties and joint fundraising committees. For a more thorough description of the legal issues in the dispute, see this article that Ars published yesterday. In short, US law requires broadcasters to offer individual candidates the “lowest unit charge,” or LUC, during the 60 days before an election. The law helps level the playing field somewhat by letting candidates make their cases to voters who watch broadcast TV without needing to raise exorbitant sums of money. The Trump administration, acting through the Federal Communications Commission, ordered broadcast TV stations to also give these discounts to political parties and joint fundraising committees, which face fewer limits on how much money they can raise and spend. Four Democratic candidates appealed, and a j

Read the full article

Published by Ars Technica on arstechnica.com

Open on arstechnica.com
Advertisement

More in General U.S. News

Revealed: US attorneys rally to free children held in immigration custody
General U.S. News3h ago

Revealed: US attorneys rally to free children held in immigration custody

Trump administration has indefinitely stranded hundreds of kids and lawyers from over 50 organizations are fighting for their release An army of attorneys is rallying to free hundreds of children from immigration custody, where they have been stranded indefinitely by the Trump administration without their parents or loved ones, the Guardian can reveal. The effort is a counter strike to what critics see as unprecedented moves by federal officials to ride roughshod over children’s rights and increase deportations – while in the meantime corralling them in conditions that can allegedly lead to psychological harm. Continue reading...

Federal judge blocks Donald Trump's latest bid to restrict birthright citizenship even as US proposes new passport rules
General U.S. News11h ago

Federal judge blocks Donald Trump's latest bid to restrict birthright citizenship even as US proposes new passport rules

A federal judge in the US on Wednesday (local time ) has blocked President Donald Trump's latest attempt to limit birthright citizenship , granting a preliminary injunction against an executive order which was issued after the Supreme Court struck down his previous attempts last year. US District Judge Deborah L Boardman in Maryland issued the injunction until a class-action lawsuit brought by immigrant families and advocacy groups is resolved. “The Supreme Court has spoken: Children in the certified class are ‘citizens at birth,’” Boardman wrote in Wednesday's ruling, according to The Associated Press. In August, Trump signed an executive order expanding the categories of noncitizen parents whose children would be ineligible for citizenship is likely unlawful as applied to a nationwide class of families whose legal status was already at issue in earlier court fights. They were joined in the lawsuit by We Are CASA, the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. Others said they feared their children would be denied citizenship because a member of the parents' extended family was connected to a gang in their home country, even though the parents were not gang members. Judge Boardman, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, wrote in her order that the administration had advanced a “distorted interpretation” of the high court ruling striking down Trump’s original executive order to restrict birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that anyone born on US soil and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically an American citizen, irrespective of the immigration status of their parents. Republicans, including President Trump, have long opposed birthright citizenship, arguing that it encourages illegal immigration into the US. The Maryland court order comes hours after it was reported that the Trump administration proposed changes, requiring parents and legal guardians to provide proof of their own citizenship or immigration status when applying for US passports for their children in an effort to restrict birthright citizenship. Stay updated with the latest Trending , India , World and US news.

US Congress rejects constitutional amendment to restrict Supreme Court size
General U.S. News12h ago

US Congress rejects constitutional amendment to restrict Supreme Court size

A proposed amendment to the United States Constitution has fallen short, after Republicans attempted to cap the number of seats on the nation’s Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives failed to advance a joint resolution championed by Republicans that would have permanently limited the court to its current number of justices: nine. The amendment’s final vote, which was mostly along party lines, was 212 in favour and 206 opposed. A simple majority is needed to pass most legislation in the House, but constitutional amendments require two-thirds support. Representative Don Davis of North Carolina was the only Democrat to vote in support of the amendment, while independent Representative Kevin Kiley of California, who caucuses with Republicans, voted against it. US House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday took to social media to chide Democrats who voted against the two bills. “For members of Congress who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, condemning socialism and defending the integrity of the Supreme Court shouldn’t be a controversial vote,” Johnson wrote on X. “Sadly, for today’s Democrats, they are.” Both efforts effectively amount to messaging exercises by Republicans, who are attempting to put their Democratic counterparts on the record as not denouncing socialism and any Supreme Court expansion. The manoeuvres come less than two months before November’s pivotal midterm elections, which will decide which party controls the chambers of Congress. In April 2021, four Democrats in the US Congress introduced a bill that would have created a Supreme Court with 13 justices. The US Constitution establishes the Supreme Court but does not limit – or specify – its size, leaving the matter entirely to the nation’s lawmakers. In an interview with NBC News last month, Democratic Senator Jim Clyburn of South Carolina embraced the idea. “I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand,” Clyburn said. “Thirteen is a pretty good number.