最高法院周二（FCC v. Brown）再次（近几周来第二次）驳回第四巡回上诉法院一个旨在帮助民主党在政治上获利的小组。如果下级法院不继续犯法律不服从的错误，大法官们或许就不必如此频繁地使用紧急程序。
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, for the second time in recent weeks (FCC v. Brown), slapped down a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel that sought to help Democrats politically. Maybe the Justices wouldn’t have to use their emergency docket as often if lower courts didn’t keep committing acts of legal insubordination.
在一份未署名的意见书中，大法官们斥责第四巡回上诉法院小组命令联邦通信委员会（FCC）尽快对民主党候选人的请愿书作出裁决。“我们的权力分立体制不允许司法部门以这种方式干涉‘政府另一个平行部门的运作’”，意见书写道。这是正确的宪法法律。
In an unsigned opinion, the Justices rebuked the Fourth Circuit panel for ordering the Federal Communications Commission to rule pronto on a petition by Democratic candidates. “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 opinion says. That’s correct constitutional law.
该争议的背景是一项联邦法律，要求广播公司在大选前60天内向候选人提供折扣广告费率。去年春天，FCC发布指导意见，称与候选人协调的党派委员会有权享受同样的广告折扣。这一规定是否由联邦法律要求尚不明确，但有力论点认为，对候选人和党派委员会的不同法律待遇违反了第一修正案。这也有利于民主党。
The context for the dispute is a federal law that requires broadcasters to give candidates discounted advertising rates during the 60 days before a general election. The FCC last spring issued guidance saying that party committees coordinating with candidates are entitled to the same ad discounts. Whether this is required by federal law is murky, but there’s a strong argument that the disparate legal treatment of candidates and party committees violates the First Amendment. It also benefits Democrats.
虽然个别民主党候选人通常相较于共和党候选人拥有资金优势，但共和党党派委员会的资金状况往往优于其民主党 counterparts。因此，FCC的指导意见本可通过让共和党党派委员会以与民主党候选人相当的折扣购买广告，来削弱民主党的优势。
While individual Democratic candidates tend to have funding advantages over Republicans, GOP party committees are more flush than their Democratic counterparts. The FCC guidance thus stood to reduce a Democratic advantage by letting GOP party committees buy ads at discounts on par with Democratic candidates.
进入民主党参议院候选人，包括谢罗德·布朗（俄亥俄州）、罗伊·库珀（北卡罗来纳州）和乔恩·奥索夫（乔治亚州），他们依据联邦法律通过行政程序挑战了FCC的指导意见。但在FCC对他们的投诉作出裁决之前，民主党人起诉了该机构。第四巡回上诉法院一个分歧的小组裁定支持他们。
Enter Democratic Senate candidates, including Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Roy Cooper (North Carolina) and Jon Ossoff (Georgia), who challenged the FCC guidance through its administrative process, as required by federal law. But before the FCC decided on their complaint, the Democrats sued the agency. A divided Fourth Circuit panel ruled in their favor.
最高法院在9月初维持了该裁决，指出《通信法》“‘明确规定’委员会必须以命令形式解决复议申请，‘在受损方可以向联邦法院申请进一步复议之前’。”换句话说，如果FCC未能在各方期望的时间表内解决其投诉，各方不能诉诸法院。
The Supreme Court in early September stayed the ruling, noting that the Communications Act “‘makes clear’ that the Commission must resolve an application for review by order ‘before an aggrieved party may petition for further review in federal court.’”In other words, parties can’t run to the courts if the FCC doesn’t resolve their complaints on their preferred timeline.
随后，候选人要求第四巡回法院迫使FCC对其上诉作出裁决，以便他们能够就其主张进行诉讼。第四巡回法院的分歧合议庭于10月7日再次支持这一要求，要求FCC在两天内解决其上诉。准备就绪，出发。
The candidates then asked the Fourth Circuit to compel the FCC to rule on their appeal so they could litigate their claims. A divided Fourth Circuit panel on Oct. 7 again obliged, requiring the FCC to resolve their appeal in two days. Ready, set, go.
正如第四巡回法院法官J.哈维·威尔金森在异议中所写，多数派“在枪口下要求机构作出决定，以便多数派能够审理案件实质并重申其早前的结论，在即将到来的选举的紧张氛围中破坏已有的竞选财务规则。”最高法院基本上也持此观点。“第四巡回法院在该情况下发布‘特别’令状的决定是不恰当的，”法院表示。联邦法律要求FCC“对其收到的每一项申请采取行动，但并未要求委员会在特定时间范围内采取行动。”大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊本应维持第四巡回法院的命令。
As Fourth Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote in dissent, the majority “demands at gunpoint an agency decision which will allow the majority to reach the merits and recapitulate its own earlier conclusions, disrupting settled campaign finance rules in the hot breath of an impending election.”The Supreme Court more or less agreed. “The Fourth Circuit’s decision to issue an ‘extraordinary’ writ was inappropriate under the circumstances,” the Court said. Federal law requires the FCC to “act on every application it receives, but it does not obligate the Commission to act within a particular timeframe.”Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have kept the Fourth Circuit order in place.
在一个更好的世界里，国会将废除FCC，但法院无法微观管理国会所创建的行政程序。[视频] 《华尔街日报》观点：最高法院拉开新任期序幕
In a better world, Congress would eliminate the FCC, but courts can’t micromanage the administrative process created by Congress. [video] WSJ Opinion: The Supreme Court Kicks Off a New Term