In a published 2-1 decision, the court granted a challenge brought by four Democratic candidates and set aside the Federal Communications Commission Media Bureau’s March 30 public notice, DA 26-300. The notice was scheduled to take effect on September 4, 2026, at the start of the 60-day pre-general-election window for the lowest-unit charge.

The ruling preserves the statutory lowest-unit charge for legally qualified candidates and qualifying authorized committees. It also prevents political parties and joint-fundraising committees with non-candidate members from relying on the challenged notice to claim that same rate. The decision is a Fourth Circuit ruling, not a nationwide amendment to federal law or a final ruling by the Supreme Court.

What the lowest-unit charge does

The lowest-unit charge, or LUC, is the lowest rate a broadcast station charges for the same class and amount of advertising time during the same period. Under 47 U.S.C. § 315(b)(1)(A), the protection applies during the 45 days before a primary and the 60 days before a general election to a legally qualified candidate using broadcast time in connection with the candidate’s campaign.

The rule is designed to prevent broadcasters from charging a legally qualified candidate more than the station’s lowest comparable rate during those pre-election windows. It applies to broadcast television and radio, subject to the statute and the FCC’s implementing rules.

What the FCC notice said

In DA 26-300, the Media Bureau said the LUC applied to candidates’ authorized committees, including qualifying authorized committees involved in joint fundraising with legally qualified federal candidates. The notice also said that advertisements qualifying as coordinated expenditures by political parties and candidates could receive the LUC.

The notice distinguished those arrangements from independent party expenditures. Advertising purchased by a political party without coordination with a candidate was not eligible under the guidance.

The FCC argued that the notice largely restated existing guidance and that the statutory framework could cover certain candidate-connected committees and coordinated advertising arrangements. The FCC and the United States defended that position in court, while the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee intervened in support of the agency.

What the Fourth Circuit decided

The majority concluded that the relevant statutory language does not extend the LUC to political parties or joint-fundraising committees with non-candidate members. In the court’s view, the statute ties the favorable rate to a legally qualified candidate and the candidate’s authorized committee, and the disputed arrangements did not fit that category.

The petitioners were Sherrod Brown, Jon Ossoff, Roy Cooper and Kristen McDonald Rivet. The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the Media Bureau’s action and rejected the FCC’s argument that judicial review had to wait for a full Commission decision.

The court said the FCC had effectively constructively denied the candidates’ application for review. The Commission had not resolved the merits before the planned September 4 effective date, and a proposed order would have treated the application as an improper vehicle for review rather than deciding whether the notice was lawful.

The majority therefore granted the petition and set aside the public notice as unlawful, holding it for naught. Judge Robert King wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Wynn, who also wrote a concurrence. Judge Wilkinson dissented, arguing that the court should not have intervened in this posture and warning that the majority’s interpretation could burden collaborative political speech involving parties and candidates.

Who is affected

Legally qualified candidates: The ruling does not eliminate the LUC for legally qualified candidates during the statutory pre-election windows.

Authorized committees: A political committee properly authorized by a candidate remains distinct from a committee that includes non-candidate members. The court’s ruling does not erase the LUC rights of qualifying candidate-authorized committees.

Political parties: Independent party expenditures were already excluded from the FCC notice’s LUC treatment. The ruling also rejects the notice’s attempt to extend the discounted rate to party-related arrangements that fall outside the statute’s candidate-and-authorized-committee framework.

Broadcasters: Stations will need to examine who is purchasing an advertisement, which committee authorized the purchase, whether the ad is coordinated with a candidate and what documentation supports an LUC request. The FCC notice itself said stations could request documentation from parties to confirm eligibility.

Campaigns and committees: Broadcast-buying economics may differ depending on whether an advertisement is placed by a candidate committee, a qualifying authorized joint-fundraising committee, a coordinated candidate-party operation or an independent party committee. The ruling establishes eligibility boundaries but does not provide a specific estimate of how much any campaign’s advertising costs will change.

What changes in practice

The immediate result is that the FCC’s planned expansion is not taking effect on September 4. Candidates and stations must instead operate under the distinction drawn by the Fourth Circuit between candidate-connected advertising that fits the statutory framework and party or committee advertising outside that category.

That distinction could affect how campaigns allocate broadcast inventory, structure purchases and document coordination before the November 2026 general election. It may also require stations to apply more careful eligibility checks when multiple committees or political organizations are involved in a purchase.

Any broader effect on viewers is likely to be indirect. If committees face different access to discounted inventory, campaigns could adjust the volume, timing or placement of television and radio advertising. The available court and agency records do not establish a quantified change in ad prices or a guaranteed change in the amount of advertising audiences will see.

What happens next

The FCC may respond to the decision, and the parties could seek further appellate review. The full Commission also could address related questions about political advertising guidance, although the Fourth Circuit’s ruling set aside the specific Media Bureau notice at issue in this case.

For broadcasters and campaigns, the immediate deadline is September 4, 2026, when the 60-day general-election LUC window begins. The practical question is whether an advertisement is being purchased by a legally qualified candidate or qualifying authorized committee, or instead by a party or committee that does not meet the statutory category identified by the court.

That distinction will shape political broadcast-rate disputes as campaigns compete for television and radio time ahead of the November 2026 election.

Sources

• Fourth Circuit published opinion, Brown v. FCC
• FCC Media Bureau Public Notice DA 26-300
• The Desk report on the ruling

In short: the appellate court kept most of the case’s dismissals in place, but it reversed parts of the qualified-immunity analysis for the inmate’s Free Exercise claim and ordered additional review using the correct prison-standards framework.

What the case was about

Plaintiff Stephen Lamarck Roberts, a Sunni Muslim incarcerated at Red Onion State Prison in Virginia, said his religious beliefs required two linked accommodations during Ramadan: fasting during the Ramadan schedule and eating food prepared under Jewish Kashrut law. He also said Kashrut required “an Orthodox Rabbi” to actively supervise key aspects of the kosher diet.

The prison told him it could not provide a Ramadan-compatible diet in time for Ramadan 2020, but it later complied in time for Ramadan 2021. Roberts sued seeking injunctive, declaratory, and money relief, including claims under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause and under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

What the Fourth Circuit changed

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part (and vacated/remanded in part). It left in place dismissal of the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection parts of the case. It also confirmed that the later 2021 diet change meant some requests for forward-looking relief were moot.

The key change came on the First Amendment Free Exercise damages theory. The Fourth Circuit said the district court’s qualified-immunity analysis went wrong in two connected ways:

• Wrong “clearly established” standard. The district court, the appellate court found, effectively required Roberts to point to a prior case with nearly identical facts. The Fourth Circuit held the relevant Free Exercise right was clearly established in 2020 for an inmate who sincerely believes he must observe both Ramadan fasting and Kashrut-based dietary requirements.
• Failure to apply the correct prison Free Exercise framework. Even when a right is clearly established, qualified immunity can still apply if there was no constitutional violation under the prison-specific test. The Fourth Circuit said the district court failed to apply the appropriate Free Exercise analysis for prisons—using the Turner penological-interests factors.

Why this matters beyond Roberts

Prison religious-diet disputes often turn on the interaction between two legal questions:

• Whether the inmate’s religious right was clearly established at the relevant time (a qualified-immunity threshold).
• Whether the prison’s response was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests under Turner (a constitutional-merits framework).

This remand highlights that courts are expected to do the Turner analysis with the right legal lens, rather than stopping after a narrow “did we find an identical prior case?” qualified-immunity comparison.

What to watch next

On remand, the district court will revisit whether prison officials’ handling of Roberts’s Ramadan 2020 request fits the constitutional standard under Turner. The appellate court’s decision does not guarantee a particular Ramadan diet outcome; it requires the lower court to apply the corrected framework before deciding whether Roberts can overcome qualified immunity for damages.

Sources

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit — Roberts v. Engelke (No. 22-6411) published opinion (PDF)
• Justia — Roberts v. Engelke, No. 22-6411 (4th Cir.) (readable summary)