The Trump Anti-Freedom FCC Proposed Rules Are At An End — For Limiting Democratic Committees’ Speech Rights. Solid Decision — From The Supremes.

So, the Trump FCC attempts — to limit primarily Democratic Committee reach, on a “political ad spending” basis — have now failed. I don’t love committee spending, as a rule — but it is plainly consistent with the free expression / political speech precepts we’ve long held, in the US.

This one involves (in the succint prose of Amy Howe) Sen. Jon Ossoff (D) and three other Democrats who are/were candidates for the House or Senate went to the full FCC on April 29, 2026 — asking it to review the public notice. Approximately six weeks later, before the agency had acted on their application for review, they went to federal court, where they argued that the public notice was inconsistent with federal election laws. That is correct.

But as it now stands, both Democratic and Republican Committees will be able to buy ads at preferential rates (should they wish to) — going into the midterms.

This confirms my view of the First Amendment law. And whatever Trump’s FCC does (or tries to do, more precisely — beyond its charter), after the midterm cycle — will be litigated anew. Here’s the decision, of last evening, from the Supremes (and for the record, KBJ was the lone dissenter — I get her point; but I think freer speech is… better):

…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. Council Tree Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 503 F. 3d 284, 287 (CA3 2007); Alabama Power Co. v. FCC, 311 F. 3d 1357, 1366 (CA11 2002); International Telecard Assn. v. FCC, 166 F. 3d 387, 388 (CADC 1999) (per curiam). 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 recissions 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….

Now you know — blog outage begins on early Monday morning, now… flight plans are changing slightly — smile.

नमस्ते