SCOTUS Pauses Political Ad Rates: Halts 4th Circuit Order

• The Supreme Court temporarily paused a lower court ruling that had prevented political parties from receiving preferential broadcast advertising rates.
• The Trump administration has again appealed a dispute over a mail-in voting executive order to the Supreme Court.
• Missouri's Secretary of State filed an emergency application asking the Court to allow the use of its new congressional map for midterm elections.
• New Jersey has petitioned the Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split regarding the regulation of prediction markets.
• The Court will hear arguments this fall in two cases initially filed by individuals without legal counsel, a rare occurrence.

In a significant move, the Supreme Court temporarily halted a lower court's decision that had prevented political parties and joint fundraising committees from accessing preferential broadcast advertising rates.

The Supreme Court has recently taken action on several pressing legal matters, including a significant decision regarding political advertising. Late last month, Republican organizations petitioned the high court to intervene in a dispute over broadcast rates for political advertisements. On Friday, the justices issued a temporary halt to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruling that had previously barred political parties and joint fundraising committees from securing preferential rates for their campaign ads. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson registered the sole dissent in this order.

In other developments, the Trump administration on Sunday once again appealed a dispute concerning President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting to the Supreme Court, following an earlier withdrawal of its application on Thursday. A response to this latest request is anticipated by 4 p.m. EDT on Wednesday. Additionally, Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins filed an emergency application on Friday night, urging the justices to permit the state to implement its new congressional map for the upcoming midterm elections, a request to which challenger Richard von Glahn responded on Monday. The Court also released its third and final summer order list on Friday morning, which notably included the denial of a petition for rehearing from New York healthcare workers who had sought religious accommodations from the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

A burgeoning legal battle over the regulation of prediction markets, such as Kalshi and Polymarket, is poised to reach the Supreme Court. Multiple lawsuits have emerged in recent years, with states contending that these new platforms function as traditional gambling, falling under their broad regulatory authority. Conversely, the prediction markets themselves, along with the Trump administration, advocate for federal oversight, aiming to preempt state control.

Last week, New Jersey formally requested the justices to address this issue by filing a petition for review. This move came immediately after a circuit split materialized on the topic, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit siding with Nevada regulators in their ability to oversee Kalshi’s sports contracts, a decision that broke with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit’s stance in New Jersey’s case. Many legal observers anticipate that the Supreme Court will eventually be compelled to weigh in on this complex regulatory landscape.

The Supreme Court’s typical oral argument docket is predominantly shaped by elite appellate attorneys who meticulously identify cases likely to capture the justices' interest. However, a notable shift is occurring this fall, as the Court is set to hear arguments in two cases initiated by individuals who navigated the initial phases without legal representation—a phenomenon not seen in five years.

These two “outsiders” include an Orthodox Jewish father of five, who alleges religious discrimination by his city’s planning commission, and a federal prisoner serving a 20-year sentence for a Mafia-linked racketeering conviction, who claims entitlement to transfer to a halfway house or home confinement. While both men are now represented by prestigious legal teams for their Supreme Court appearances, they independently managed the crucial first step of writing and filing a cert petition. In other procedural news, the Court also released its calendar on Friday for the December argument session, scheduled from Monday, November 30, to Wednesday, December 9.

Amidst the Court's recent flurry of activity, a historical note marks the unexpected passing of Chief Justice Fred Vinson. On this day in 1953, Vinson died of a heart attack at the age of 63, just seven years after his appointment to the Supreme Court.

Source: Original reporting via The Wall Street Journal and The Hill