Republicans ask Supreme Court to let them air TV ads for less

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — Republican campaign groups – supported by the Trump administration – asked the Supreme Court on Monday to let them purchase television advertising at discounted rates, handing the nation’s highest court another emergency appeal that could influence the outcome of this year’s midterm elections.

The quick-turn appeal follows a series of high-profile decisions from the 6-3 conservative court that have largely benefited Republicans. A separate case dealing with President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order on mail ballots is also expected to rocket back to the justices in the coming days.

The latest case involves television advertising, often the most expensive part of a congressional campaign. Candidates benefit from a federal law that requires broadcasters to charge them deeply discounted ad rates. Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission said that political parties and other entities are also entitled to the lower rates.

The FCC decision was widely seen as benefiting the Republican Party, which generally tends to raise more money through the party committees. Democrats, by contrast, generally raise more money directly through their candidates.

The House and Senate Republican party committees told the Supreme Court on Monday that they had “budgeted tens of millions of dollars in ad buys under these rules.” But, because of the appeals court decision, “broadcast stations are already rescinding those rates.”

The Republican committees argued in their filing that federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide the case because the FCC’s “interpretive guidance” was “neither agency action, nor final.”

They have asked the court to act by Friday.

The Trump administration, which is eager to keep Republican control of Congress, submitted a brief shortly after the appeal was filed supporting the GOP groups. The Justice Department argued that the FCC guidance doesn’t harm the Democratic candidates who sued because the rule is applied universally to all candidates and groups.

“The notice does not grant favored treatment to one side or the other; instead, the notice’s interpretation offers the same benefit to all sides, including the challengers themselves and the committees and parties supporting them,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the administration’s top appellate attorney, told the Supreme Court.

A divided three-judge panel of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that federal law provides the lower rate only for candidates.

“The term ‘candidate’ means ‘candidate,’” wrote US Circuit Judge Robert King, who was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton.

US Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a long-serving conservative appointed by President Ronald Reagan, dissented. He argued that collaboration between candidates and parties has a rich tradition in the United States and described the 4th Circuit’s decision as an “assault” on that tradition.

“Congress cannot dangle lower rates for some candidate speech as a means of penalizing other candidate speech,” he wrote.

Four Democratic candidates sued over the FCC’s decision: Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan, former Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, and former Gov. Roy Cooper of North Carolina. The campaign arm for House and Senate Republicans intervened to defend the FCC’s decision.

The Supreme Court in late June rolled back longstanding limits on how much political parties may coordinate with federal candidates. Since the 1970s, political party committees were capped at how much money they may spend in coordination with a campaign. That pushed a flood of campaign money toward super PACs, which have no spending limits, but are unable to run their advertising and other messages past candidates they want to help.

In a 6-3 decision decided along ideological lines, the court ruled that those caps violated the First Amendment. That decision was a victory for Republicans principally because of the ad rate issue.

The Supreme Court is likely to act on the emergency appeal in coming weeks.

Correction: This story has been updated with the full name of Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.