Whether the Fourth Circuit had statutory jurisdiction to review a challenge to an FCC public notice while an application for review was still pending before the Commission. Whether the party committees are entitled to a stay of the Fourth Circuit's judgment pending a petition for a writ of certiorari. Whether the potential loss of favorable advertising rates constitutes irreparable harm to the party committees.

• The Fourth Circuit lacked statutory jurisdiction because the candidates' application for review was still pending before the FCC.
• Under the Communications Act, the filing of an application for review is a "condition precedent to judicial review."
• They will suffer irreparable harm because broadcasters are rescinding favorable rates, which increases the cost of advertising.
• This financial burden hampers their First Amendment rights to speak and coordinate political activities.

• The Fourth Circuit possessed jurisdiction based on "constructive-denial" grounds.
• An agency may not use delay or inaction to defeat the power of judicial review.
• Statutory exhaustion requirements are generally "nonjurisdictional" rather than strict jurisdictional bars.
• Not stated.

• The Court granted the application for a stay.
• The Court applied the test from *Hollingsworth v. Perry*, requiring: (1) a reasonable probability that four Justices will grant certiorari; (2) a fair prospect that a majority will reverse the judgment; and (3) a likelihood of irreparable harm.
• The Court reasoned that 47 U.S.C. §155(c)(7) makes the filing of an application for review a "condition precedent to judicial review of any order, decision, report, or action made or taken pursuant to a delegation."
• The Court noted that 28 U.S.C. §2344 and 47 U.S.C. §155(c)(4) require the Commission to resolve an application by order and provide public notice before a party may file a petition for review in court.
• The Court found the Fourth Circuit's jurisdictional conclusion split with other circuits, citing *Council Tree Communications, Inc. v. FCC*, *Alabama Power Co. v. FCC*, and *International Telecard Assn. v. FCC*.
• The Court determined that irreparable harm is likely because the loss of favorable rates cannot be remedied after the fact through refunds or reimbursements.
• The Court held that this injury implicates First Amendment rights to speak and coordinate political activities, citing *National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC*.