federal law

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with Republicans Wednesday and gave political parties and their fundraising committees lower rates for broadcast campaign ads.

Over two dissents, the justices granted a fast-track appeal from the Trump administration and the National Republican Congressional Committee and upheld the use of the GOP-friendly rule in the midterm election.

In a brief order, the court said the issue should be left to the Federal Communications Commission.

The outcome has given Republican candidates an advertising edge in the final weeks of the campaign.

Federal law says a “legally qualified candidate” running for election is entitled to a “lower unit charge” for campaign ads in the 60 days prior to an election.

However, on March 30, the FCC, under Republican control, announced that broadcasters must extend the lower rates to political parties and their joint fundraising committees.

The FCC notice did not explain the basis for this change, and it refused to hold a commission hearing to debate the issue.

But the change was seen as benefiting Republicans.

Democratic candidates have raised more money from direct but limited contributions from individuals, while Republicans have raised far more through party committees that are funded by wealthy donors.

The non-partisan Campaign Legal Center said the FCC’s rule change was “contrary to the text and purpose of the federal statute and would effectively grant super PACs an advertising discount.”

Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the FCC, issued a statement objecting to the change.

“The American public should not have sweeping election-year rule changes forced on them in the dark, on the eve of the election, without a single opportunity for public input,” she said.

Democratic Senate candidates Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Ossoff of Georgia and Roy Cooper from North Carolina objected to the FCC rule change in April and and asked for a review.

When no action was taken, they filed suit in federal court. They argued the FCC had no authority to change the law that gave only candidates, not fundraising committees, the benefit of the lower ad rates.

Since then, the two sides have gone back and forth in the courts, with both accusing the other of seeking a late change in the rules.

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled for the Democrats in a pair of 2-1 decisions.

“Suffice to say that any ‘chaos’ is the FCC’s fault, not ours,” Judge Robert B. King, a Clinton appointee, said on Oct. 7. It “has endeavored to create from whole cloth a new rule entirely outside the purview of judicial review.”

But the Supreme Court stepped in twice to overturn the 4th Circuit and rule for the Republicans.

In a Sept. 4 order, the court said in an unsigned order the 4th Circuit intervened too soon. The law “makes clear that an aggrieved party must wait for the Commission to resolve its application for review by order before filing a petition for judicial review.”

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

In September, the FCC did nothing other than to ask for public comments on its March rule change.

Frustrated with the delay, the 4th Circuit issued a second order requiring the FCC to act by Oct. 9.

Last week, in response to an appeal from Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, Chief Justice John G. Roberts put the 4th Circuit order on hold.

On Wednesday, the full court said the 4th Circuit Court should have left the issue to the FCC.

“Our system of separation of powers does not allow the judiciary to meddle in the workings of a coordinate branch of the government in this manner,” the court said an unsigned opinion.

In dissent, Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted to deny the administration’s appeal.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded wary Monday of state-by-state lawsuits that could impose huge damage verdicts on energy producers for the impact of global climate change.

Instead, several of them suggested these local and state claims may be blocked by the federal Clean Air Act.

“Interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. This kind of pollution is a federal matter unless Congress says otherwise.”

Justice Elena Kagan appeared to agree. State-by-state lawsuits “get in way of how Congress decided to regulate greenhouse gases,” she said.

At issue before the court was the question of whether cities and states may sue oil and gas producers for the damages inflicted by climate change.

California and nearly three dozen states and municipalities have filed such claims, but none have gone to trial.

Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Boulder County may sue for damages in a local court.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the oil industry backed by the Trump administration. Its lawyers argued that the Constitution and federal law do not allow for such claims to be resolved in local courts.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts sounded skeptical of opening the door to a wave of climate change lawsuits. “There will be 50 different cities. How would that work out?” he asked a lawyer representing Boulder.

For much of the two-hour argument, the justices struggled over whether federal law imposes a limit on such lawsuits, or instead whether states and their judges are free to seek damages for the harm they have suffered.

They did not signal a clear outcome but most of them sounded as though they leaned toward saying that federal law governs such far-reaching damage claims.

The energy producers turned to the Supreme Court after losing in state court.

They hope the high court will shut down more than three dozen lawsuits seeking damages for the impact of climate change.

So far, judges across the nation have been divided. Some have ruled that federal law preempts or blocks states and counties from suing under state law.

But others, including the Colorado Supreme Court, ruled the lawsuits may proceed under state law.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, a staunch conservative, said he is sitting out the case, presumably because he owns stock in oil companies that would be affected by a ruling.

If the court splits 4-4 and cannot rule, it would be major disappointment for the oil industry because it would allow all the climate-change suits to proceed, at least for now.

SEATTLE — A judge on Thursday overturned President Trump’s decision to fire the court-appointed top U.S. prosecutor in Seattle, the latest development in a legal tug-of-war over the administration’s efforts to control who occupies the powerful Justice Department posts.

The 17 active and senior judges in the Western District of Washington unanimously named Roger Rogoff, a former judge and veteran prosecutor, U.S. attorney in July, after Trump failed to fill the post with a nominee confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

The president fired Rogoff less than an hour later. Rogoff sued, and in a ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian found the termination unlawful and reinstated him.

Bastian noted that when presidents fail to fill a U.S. attorney post with a nominee confirmed by the Senate, federal law authorizes the judges of that district to appoint someone “until the vacancy is filled.”

“It does not say ‘until the president fires the person selected,’” Bastian said.

He concluded: “Mr. Roger Rogoff is the United States attorney for the Western District of Washington and has been the rightful holder of that office since July 15, 2026, when he took the oath of office.”

The Justice Department said in a written statement it disagreed with the decision and would appeal.

Rogoff is the latest in a series of judicially appointed U.S. attorneys to be ousted by the Trump administration, and he is believed to be the first to sue over the removal, setting up a direct legal battle over the issue.

Presidents normally appoint U.S. attorneys, the top federal prosecutor in each judicial district. The positions require Senate confirmation, except in temporary appointments, which can last up to 120 days. When temporary appointments expire before a nominee is confirmed, the judges in a judicial district can name a U.S. attorney.

But under Trump, the Justice Department has sought to leave unconfirmed prosecutors in their positions indefinitely, often through novel personnel maneuvers. Trump named Charles Neil Floyd, who previously served as an immigration judge, interim U.S. attorney in Seattle in October 2025 but never forwarded his nomination to the Senate.

When Floyd’s time as interim U.S. attorney expired, Trump simply shifted his title, a tactic the administration has also tried in other federal judicial districts: It named him first assistant U.S. attorney, while leaving the top post empty.

Trump last month nominated Pete Serrano, the first assistant U.S. attorney in eastern Washington, to be the U.S. attorney in Seattle. But Serrano has not been confirmed, and his nomination is opposed by Washington’s senior Democratic senator, Patty Murray.

“Today’s ruling is an important victory for the rule of law and the people in Western Washington who deserve a U.S. attorney that answers to the law, not Donald Trump,” Murray said in a written statement Thursday.

Bastian is the chief judge in eastern Washington. He heard the case because the judges in western Washington were recused.

In December, Alina Habbaresigned as the top federal prosecutor for New Jersey after an appeals court said she had been serving in the post unlawfully.

Lindsey Halligan, who pursued indictments against a pair of Trump’s adversaries, left her position as an acting U.S. attorney in Virginia after a judge concluded her appointment was unlawful and that indictments she brought against James and former FBI Director James Comey must be dismissed.

The judges there named James Hundley, who had handled criminal and civil cases for more than 30 years, but the administration fired him. It also fired a court-appointed U.S. attorney in northern New York.

Johnson writes for the Associated Press.