A federal appeals court has given the FCC 30 days to respond to a mandamus petition seeking to force the agency to rule on a request to repeal its news distortion policy, escalating a legal fight that began when a bipartisan group of former commissioners filed for the policy’s elimination last fall.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a per curiam order filed May 20, directed the FCC to file a response not to exceed 7,800 words by June 19. Petitioners may reply within 14 days of that filing. The panel consists of Circuit Judges Henderson, Pillard, and Rao.
The order comes roughly six months after seven former FCC chairs and commissioners, along with several former senior agency staff, filed a Petition for Special Relief with the Commission, asking it to rescind the news distortion policy in full. The Radio Television Digital News Association joined the petition in April.
The FCC has not docketed the petition, acknowledged receipt, solicited public comment, or given any indication of review. On the day of filing, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr responded on X, “How about no. On my watch, the FCC will continue to hold broadcasters accountable to their public interest obligations.”
The mandamus petition, filed April 28, argues the Chairman’s control over the Commission’s docket gives him sole authority to present the matter to the full Commission for a vote, and that his public statements amount to a de facto denial the agency has not formally acknowledged. Because the petition calls for overruling established agency policy, Commission rules require that it be decided by the full Commission rather than by bureau staff, a threshold the petitioners argue the Chairman has used to bury the proceeding.
The underlying petition presented five grounds for repeal. It argued the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice foreclosed the government interest the news distortion policy purports to serve, that the policy chills broadcaster speech in the same manner that caused the Commission to repeal the fairness doctrine in 1987, that the policy has been selectively weaponized for partisan purposes under the current administration, that the policy’s contours remain too vague to give broadcasters adequate notice, and that the Commission’s broadcast hoax rule already covers the narrow category of deliberate fabrication the news distortion policy was designed to address.
The mandamus filing documented the policy’s enforcement record as evidence of its obsolescence: eight findings of liability between 1969 and 2019, seven of them before 1985, and only one in the last 40 years. It also described the chilling effects petitioners attributed to Chairman Carr’s conduct since January 2025, including the reopening of previously dismissed complaints against CBS and ABC while leaving undisturbed a dismissed complaint involving coverage favorable to the current administration, threats against Comcast affiliates over use of the phrase “Maryland man” to describe Kilmar Ábrego Garcia, public warnings to broadcasters to “correct course” on war coverage in March 2026, and what the filing characterized as editorial concessions extracted from Skydance Media as a condition of FCC approval for its acquisition of Paramount.
RTDNA’s declaration attached to the mandamus filing stated that member organizations had modified coverage, reassigned reporters, altered hiring decisions, adjusted coverage plans, and accepted increased editorial oversight as a result of the Chairman’s use of the policy.
The petitioners are represented by the Protect Democracy Project, TechFreedom, G Squared Strategies, and Andrew Jay Schwartzman PLLC. Former FCC Commissioner Andrew C. Barrett, one of the original petition signatories, passed away before the mandamus was filed.
