Associated Press v. United States

Last updated

Associated Press v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 5–6, 1944
Decided June 18, 1945
Full case nameAssociated Press v. United States; Tribune Company v. United States; United States v. Associated Press
Citations326 U.S. 1 ( more )
65 S. Ct. 1416; 89 L. Ed. 2013
Case history
PriorAppeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York
Holding
The Associated Press violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by prohibiting member newspapers from selling or providing any news to nonmember organizations as well as making it very difficult for nonmember newspapers to join the AP.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone
Associate Justices
Owen Roberts  · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Frank Murphy
Robert H. Jackson  · Wiley B. Rutledge
Case opinions
MajorityBlack, joined by Reed, Douglas, Rutledge (in full); Stone, Roberts, Frankfurter, Murphy (in parts)
ConcurrenceDouglas
ConcurrenceFrankfurter (in judgment)
Concur/dissentRoberts, joined by Stone
Concur/dissentMurphy
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945), was a ruling of the United States Supreme Court. concerning both antitrust law and freedom of the press. [1] The ruling confirmed that anticompetitive behavior in the news industry should be subjected to a First Amendment analysis on the ability of the public to receive information from multiple sources. [2]

Contents

Background

The Associated Press (AP), which included more than 1,200 American newspapers in its membership, had prohibited its members from selling or providing news content to organizations that were not members, regardless of whether that content had been created by the AP as branded content, or by its member newspapers in the form of "spontaneous news". [1] This rule made it difficult for non-member news organizations to compete with or join the AP network. [3]

A similar rule had been enacted by another news conglomerate, the Tribune Company, and the United States government sued both that company and the AP for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. [1] Action against the AP was first heard at the District Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that the AP had violated antitrust law. [4] The AP appealed, and the concurrent government action against the Tribune Company was combined into the Supreme Court proceeding under the name Associated Press v. United States in 1945. [1]

Opinion of the court

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Hugo Black, held that the Associated Press had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. While the AP had argued that the First Amendment allowed it to control the distribution of its own content, the court disagreed, ruling that freedom of the press did not allow news organizations to violate antitrust law. The AP bylaws, as written, constituted restraint of trade. Furthermore, the bylaws restricted interstate commerce in a fashion prohibited by the Sherman Act. The fact that the AP had not yet achieved a true monopoly on the distribution of news content was deemed irrelevant, [1]

While the ruling essentially focused on antitrust law, the parts of Black's opinion discussing journalism and public knowledge have become more influential. In Black's words: "Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests." [1]

Impact

Associated Press v. United States, thanks to Black's comment on the control of private media interests, is widely cited as an important precedent supporting efforts in the United States to restrict media concentration. This applies to both the growth of news conglomerates in that era, [5] [6] and the later growth of mass media firms. [7] [8] [9] The ruling has regained influence in the newspaper industry in the 2000s, this time due to the consolidation of newspaper ownership as the industry declines in profitability. [10]

The ruling has also been cited as justification for many regulations by the Federal Communications Commission toward broadcasting content, as media firms may try to prevent certain viewpoints from being seen/heard on stations that they control. [11] [12] In the more recent era, Black's comments on the power of media conglomerates have been applied in arguments to regulate the size of big tech firms, who have pioneered new techniques for controlling the flow of information to the public. [13] [14]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States antitrust law</span> American legal system intended to promote competition among businesses

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of businesses in order to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment protects students from being compelled to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), was a seminal First Amendment ruling by the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned a Florida state law that required newspapers to offer equal space to political candidates who wished to respond to election-related editorials or endorsements. The Supreme Court ruled that law was an unconstitutional restriction of freedom of the press under the First Amendment.

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld the ability of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate indecent content sent over the broadcast airwaves.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Howell E. Jackson</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1893 to 1895

Howell Edmunds Jackson was an American attorney, politician, and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1893 until his death in 1895. His brief tenure on the Supreme Court is most remembered for his opinion in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., in which Jackson argued in dissent that a federal income tax was constitutional. Republican President Benjamin Harrison appointed Jackson, a Democrat, to the Court. His rulings demonstrated support for broad federal power, a skepticism of states' rights and an inclination toward judicial restraint. Jackson's unexpected death after only two years of service prevented him from having a substantial impact on American history.

The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent. The 79th Congress passed the McCarran–Ferguson Act in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution and that the federal antitrust laws applied to the insurance industry.

Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), was a seminal First Amendment ruling at the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that radio broadcasters enjoyed free speech rights under the First Amendment, but those rights could be partially restricted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to maintain the public interest in equitable use of scarce broadcasting frequencies. As a result, the FCC's Fairness Doctrine was found to be constitutional.

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC is the general title of two rulings of the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of must-carry regulations enforced by the Federal Communications Commission on cable television operators. In the first ruling, known colloquially as Turner I, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), the Supreme Court held that cable television companies were First Amendment speakers who enjoyed free speech rights when determining what channels and content to carry on their networks, but demurred on whether the must-carry rules at issue were restrictions of those rights. After a remand to a lower court for fact-finding on the economic effects of the then-recent Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, the dispute returned to the Supreme Court. In Turner II, 520 U.S. 180 (1997), the Supreme Court held that must-carry rules for cable television companies were not restrictions of their free speech rights because the U.S. government had a compelling interest in enabling the distribution of media content from multiple sources and in preserving local television.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a Supreme Court case holding that the installation and use of a pen register by the police to obtain information on a suspect's telephone calls was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and hence no search warrant was required. In the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen register constitutes a violation of the suspect's reasonable expectation of privacy since the telephone numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.

The essential facilities doctrine is a legal doctrine which describes a particular type of claim of monopolization made under competition laws. In general, it refers to a type of anti-competitive behavior in which a firm with market power uses a "bottleneck" in a market to deny competitors entry into the market. It is closely related to a claim for refusal to deal.

Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court decision that established First Amendment protection for commercial speech. The ruling is an important precedent on challenges to government regulation of advertising, determining that such publications qualify as speech under the First Amendment.

<i>United States v. AT&T</i> (1982) 1982 case in U.S. antitrust law

United States v. AT&T, 552 F.Supp. 131 (1982), was a ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, that led to the 1984 Bell System divestiture, and the breakup of the old AT&T natural monopoly into seven regional Bell operating companies and a much smaller new version of AT&T.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Melville Fuller</span> Chief justice of the United States from 1888 to 1910

Melville Weston Fuller was an American politician, attorney, and jurist who served as the eighth chief justice of the United States from 1888 until his death in 1910. Staunch conservatism marked his tenure on the Supreme Court, exhibited by his tendency to support unfettered free enterprise and to oppose broad federal power. He wrote major opinions on the federal income tax, the Commerce Clause, and citizenship law, and he took part in important decisions about racial segregation and the liberty of contract. Those rulings often faced criticism in the decades during and after Fuller's tenure, and many were later overruled or abrogated. The legal academy has generally viewed Fuller negatively, although a revisionist minority has taken a more favorable view of his jurisprudence.

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper</i> American federal court case

American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787, was a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its affiliate, the New York Civil Liberties Union, against the United States federal government as represented by then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The ACLU challenged the legality and constitutionality of the National Security Agency's (NSA) bulk phone metadata collection program.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">White Court (justices)</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1910 to 1921

The White Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1910 to 1921, when Edward Douglass White served as the Chief Justice of the United States. White, who had been an associate justice since 1894, succeeded Melville Fuller as Chief Justice after Fuller's death, and White served as Chief Justice until his own death a decade later. He was the first sitting associate justice to be elevated to Chief justice in the Court's history. He was succeeded by the former president William Howard Taft.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fuller Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1888 to 1910

The Fuller Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1888 to 1910, when Melville Fuller served as the eighth Chief Justice of the United States. Fuller succeeded Morrison R. Waite as Chief Justice after the latter's death, and Fuller served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Associate Justice Edward Douglass White was nominated and confirmed as Fuller's replacement.

United States v. Terminal Railroad Association, 224 U.S. 383 (1912), is the first case in which the United States Supreme Court held it a violation of the antitrust laws to refuse to a competitor access to a facility necessary for entering or remaining in the market. In this case a combination of firms was carrying out the restrictive practice, rather than a single firm, which made the conduct susceptible to challenge under section 1 of the Sherman Act rather than under the heightened standard of section 2 of that act. Even so, the case was brought under both sections.

Comcast Cablevision of Broward County, Inc. v. Broward County, Florida, 124 F.Supp.2d 685, was a ruling at the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over the constitutionality of a local ordinance requiring an Internet service provider to share its physical network with competitors. The ruling is often cited as an important early precedent on the matter of network neutrality and the free speech rights of Internet service providers.

<i>United States v. AT&T</i> (2019)

United States v. AT&T, 916 F.3d 1029 (2019), was a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which prevented the U.S. government from blocking a merger between AT&T and Time Warner, thus creating the WarnerMedia conglomerate. The court found that regulators were unable to prove harm to consumers per the requirements of United States antitrust law.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (S. Ct., 1945).
  2. ↑ Crane, Daniel (June 29, 2020). "Collaboration and Competition in Information and News During Antitrust's Formative Era". knightcolumbia.org. Retrieved March 2, 2024.
  3. ↑ Blanchard, Margaret A. (Spring 1987). "The Associated Press Antitrust Suit: A Philosophical Clash over Ownership of First Amendment Rights". The Business History Review. 61 (1): 43–85. doi:10.2307/3115774. JSTOR   3115774.
  4. ↑ United States v. Associated Press, 52 F. Supp. 362 (S.D.N.Y., 1943).
  5. ↑ Butler, James S. (November 1947). "News-Gathering Monopolies and the Antitrust Act". Georgetown Law Journal. 36 (1): 66–72 – via HeinOnline.
  6. ↑ Celler, Emanuel (March–April 1963). "The Concentration of Ownership and the Decline of Competition in News Media". Antitrust Bulletin. 8 (2): 175–186 – via HeinOnline.
  7. ↑ Katzman, Harvey L. (1976). "Televisory Communications and the Anti-Trust Controversy". Glendale Law Review. 1 (1): 72–78 – via HeinOnline.
  8. ↑ Jolly, Matthew (October 1992). "Regulating Cable Television Rates: A Phantom First Amendment Problem". Washington Law Review. 67 (4): 873–892 – via HeinOnline.
  9. ↑ McChesney, Robert W. (Spring 2007). "Freedom of the Press for Whom - The Question to Be Answered in Our Critical Juncture". Hofstra Law Review. 35 (3): 1433–1456 – via HeinOnline.
  10. ↑ Brand, Richard (2008). "All the News That's Fit to Split: Newspaper Mergers, Antitrust Laws and the First Amendment". Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. 26 (1): 1–24 – via HeinOnline.
  11. ↑ Zack, Marilyn G. (September 1970). "F.C.C. and the Fairness Doctrine". Cleveland State Law Review. 19 (3): 579–594 – via HeinOnline.
  12. ↑ Van Wageningen, Henry J. (Fall 1973). "The Right to Reply: A Challenge to Freedom of the Press". University of Miami Law Review. 28 (1): 219–225 – via HeinOnline.
  13. ↑ Balkin, Jack M. (Fall 2012). "The First Amendment Is an Information Policy". Hofstra Law Review. 41 (1): 1–30 – via HeinOnline.
  14. ↑ Shulman, Daniel R. (2014). "What's the Problem with Google". Sedona Conference Journal. 15: 17–34 – via HeinOnline.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.