FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project

Last updated

FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 19, 2021
Decided April 1, 2021
Full case nameFederal Communications Commission, et al., v. Prometheus Radio Project, et al.
Docket nos. 19-1231
19-1241
Citations592 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior
  • Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (Prometheus I) 373 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2004), cert. denied 545 U.S. 1123 (2005)
  • Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (Prometheus II) 652 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 567 U.S. 951 (2012)
  • Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (Prometheus III) 824 F.3d 33 (3d Cir. 2016)
  • Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (Prometheus IV) 939 F.3d 567 (3d Cir. 2019), cert. accepted 592 U.S. ___ (2020)
Holding
The FCC’s decision to repeal or modify the three ownership rules was not arbitrary and capricious for purposes of the APA
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityKavanaugh, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceThomas

Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with media ownership rules that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can set under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The case dates back to the Third Circuit rulings from 2002 that have blocked FCC decisions to relax media ownership rules related to cross-ownership of newspapers with television and radio broadcast stations. In the present case, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in April 2021 that the FCC had not made arbitrary and capricious rulemaking decisions in the context of the Administrative Procedure Act, nor had the requirement to review minority ownership of stations under Congressional mandate as stated in the Third Circuit's ruling, reversing this last ruling and allowing the FCC to proceed to relax cross-media ownership rules.

Contents

Background

In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had been given authority under the Communications Act of 1934 to set media ownership rules of broadcast services such as radio and television that served the same community as to manage the broadcasting spectrum. In 1975, the FCC enacted a rule restricting cross-media ownership, preventing newspapers from also owning broadcast services, as to reduce the concentration of media ownership that had been occurring in the years prior. While the FCC could not regulate newspapers, they could extend their regulation on broadcast services to cover cross-ownership.

The 1975 rule led to a number of debates on the cross-media ownership rules, as they were found to become barriers to entry into the market. Among other functions, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 instructed the FCC to perform a review of its rules related to media ownership every four years and repeal rules that no longer made sense in the current market as to foster competition within the communications industry.

The first such review was performed in 2002. The FCC issued its first proposed rule that year for public review, and voted in 2003 to enact it. The new rule partially repealed the cross-media ownership limitations, as the FCC found that the rule was no longer necessary in the public interest to maintain competition, diversity, or localism. However, it maintained some limited ownership controls through a diversity index based on the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index to determine if market consolidation was an issue. [1] The ruling was challenged by several groups, with the primary legal challenge led by the Prometheus Radio Project, a non-profit advocacy group campaigning against media consolidation. The suit reached the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (or Prometheus I) that while the FCC had properly justified replacing the older cross-ownership restrictions with the newer cross-media limits, the reasoning they used to justify the rules for the new limits was insufficient, specifically for how the diversity index was calculated with the inclusion of Internet coverage. The Third Circuit placed a stay on the new cross-media limit rules, and required the FCC to maintain the pre-2002 rules for cross-ownership. [1]

The FCC's next required review under the Telecommunications Act came in 2006, which included reassessing the Third Circuit's decision alongside commissioned studies on the state and impact of changing the cross-ownership rules. It issued new rules in 2008, primarily limiting owners of newspapers to owning one television or one radio station in the top twenty urban markets. The rules also created a new class of minority-owned broadcasters, which had been suggested from the Prometheus I decision as to assure there would be viewpoint diversity. [2] The new rules were again challenged by the Prometheus Radio Project, which the Third Circuit heard in 2011 as Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (Prometheus II). The Third Circuit ruled to maintain the stay on the new rules, stating that the FCC still had not shown good justification for the new cross-ownership rules and minority ownership concerns that the court had previously raised. The court did reassert that the FCC had a compelling interest to relax the prior media ownership rules from 1975 as this served no compelling public interest, urging the FCC to find rules with proper justification to support this. [2]

With the ongoing action in Prometheus II, the FCC failed to complete its 2010 or 2014 review, and what efforts had been performed had not followed on the cross-media ownership aspects. The lack of inaction on these matters led to a third suit, Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (Prometheus III) in 2016 in the Third Circuit. The court ordered the FCC to complete the 2010 and 2014 reviews and issue a new proposed cross-media ownership rule by the end of 2016, since there was a compelling drive to replace the 1975 rule and the FCC's delay was hampering the process. [2] By August 2016, the FCC issued its new rules that for all purposes left the 1975 rule in place with small modifications, such as for a failing newspaper to receive investments from a local television or radio station. [3]

The new rules were seen as inaction by many media companies, which had been losing revenue over the previous years, and a fourth iteration of Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (Prometheus IV) began in the courts. While the case was under litigation, newly elected Donald Trump replaced the FCC chairmen with Ajit Pai, who led the FCC to release two new orders related to media ownership in 2017 and 2018. The 2017 orders overrode parts of the 2016 rules and essentially eliminated the cross-ownership restrictions from 1975, while the 2018 order addressed minority ownership to allow larger companies to incubate minority-owned states as to meet diversity goals. Both orders were challenged, and the cases consolidated into the ongoing Prometheus IV case at the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit ruled in September 2019 that the FCC still had not "adequately considered the effects" of the new rules on "diversity in broadcast media ownership," vacating both the 2017 and 2018 rules. [4] The Third Circuit criticized the FCC's proposed orders for failing to consider gender or social disadvantage diversity alongside racial diversity as part of its incubator program or in relaxing the ownership rules. The decision left parts of the 2016 rules but otherwise returned media ownership back to the 1975 restrictions. [5]

Supreme Court

While prior Third Circuit decisions have been petitioned to the Supreme Court, the Court has not agreed to hear the prior cases. The FCC petitioned to the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling from Prometheus IV in April 2020 with the support of the United States Department of Justice. [6] The Supreme Court granted the petition in October 2020, consolidated it with a challenge from the National Association of Broadcasters, with oral arguments heard on January 19, 2021. [7] Observers believed that a majority of the Justices on both conservative and liberal sides may side with the FCC as the Justices questioned whether the FCC needed to account for minority ownership under the original 1996 law, which has been a limiting factor in the Third Circuit's decisions in the past cases, and that under the Administrative Procedures Act, the FCC has shown it has done a sufficient amount of evaluation in its rule-making evaluations to all other factors relating to public interest of media ownership. [8]

The Court issued its unanimous ruling on April 1, 2021, reversing the Third Circuit's most recent decision. The majority opinion was written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by all other Justices. Kavanaugh wrote that the Court found that the FCC's decision to modify or eliminate the prior cross-media ownership rules were not arbitrary and capricious and thus did not violate the APA. Justice Clarence Thomas also wrote a concurrence. [9]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seven dirty words</span> Words disallowed in U.S. radio and TV

The seven dirty words are seven English-language curse words that American comedian George Carlin first listed in his 1972 "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" monologue. The words, in the order Carlin listed them, are: "shit", "piss", "fuck", "cunt", "cocksucker", "motherfucker", and "tits".

<i>Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union</i> 1997 United States Supreme Court case

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, unanimously ruling that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the regulation of materials distributed via the Internet.

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.

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or congressional legislation. The FCC removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.

The Prometheus Radio Project is a non-profit advocacy and community organizing group with a mission to resist corporate media consolidation and radio homogenization in the United States. Founded in 1998 by a small group of radio activists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Prometheus has participated in the community radio movement by providing technical training, helping marginalized communities gain access to affordable media outlets, and creating a network of low power community radio stations. A lot of Prometheus' efforts have over-time been focused on legal advocacy for low-power FM (LPFM) stations.

WFTV is a television station affiliated with ABC in Orlando, Florida, United States. It is owned by Cox Media Group alongside WRDQ, an independent station. The two stations share studios on East South Street in downtown Orlando; WFTV's primary transmitter is located near Christmas, Florida.

KMTP-TV is an independent non-commercial educational television station licensed to San Francisco, California, United States, serving the San Francisco Bay Area. Owned by the Minority Television Project, the station maintains studios on Woodside Way in San Mateo. Its transmitter, shared with KCNS, KTNC-TV and KEMO-TV, is located atop Sutro Tower in San Francisco.

<i>Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC</i>

Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC is the general title of a series of cases heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 2003 to 2019. A media activist group, Prometheus Radio Project, challenged new media ownership rules put forth by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2002. In the first court challenge in 2004, the Third Circuit overruled an attempt by the FCC to raise the limits of media ownership within market and relax cross-ownership prohibitions, and determined that a diversity index used by the FCC had been formulated inconsistently.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas L. Ambro</span> American judge (born 1949)

Thomas Lee Ambro is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

<i>FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.</i> (2009) 2009 United States Supreme Court case

Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld regulations of the Federal Communications Commission that ban "fleeting expletives" on television broadcasts, finding they were not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The constitutional issue, however, was not resolved and was remanded to the Second Circuit and re-appealed to the Supreme Court for a decision in June 2012.

<i>Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod v. FCC</i> 1998 court case

Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod v. FCC was a 1998 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case involving the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) enforcement of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the Fifth Amendment. The FCC claimed that the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) had violated the FCC's Equal Employment Opportunity requirements by not hiring enough minorities/women and by requiring a knowledge of Lutheran doctrine in order to be hired to work at its two FM and AM radio stations located in Clayton, Missouri.

Media cross-ownership is the common ownership of multiple media sources by a single person or corporate entity. Media sources include radio, broadcast television, specialty and pay television, cable, satellite, Internet Protocol television (IPTV), newspapers, magazines and periodicals, music, film, book publishing, video games, search engines, social media, internet service providers, and wired and wireless telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's scheme for regulating speech is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court excused the broadcasters from paying fines levied for what the FCC had determined indecency, in a majority opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The Supreme Court had previously issued an opinion in the case in 2009 addressing the nature of the fine itself, without addressing the restriction on indecent speech.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I, is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.

Minority ownership of media outlets in the United States is the concept of having ownership of media outlets to reflect the demographic population of the area which the media serves. This is to help ensure that media addresses issues that are of concern to the needs and interests of the local population.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016), also known as Fisher II, is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-conscious admissions policy.

The 1978 Broadcast Policy Statement on minority ownership is a publicly issued statement by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the state of minority and gender based ownership, the implications of previous ownership policies, and by taking affirmative action set into place two new additional policy measures aimed at progressing and encouraging continued diversity in media ownership. In this statement the FCC officially set forward two new programs favoring minority ownership of broadcasting facilities.

<i>United States Telecom Association v. FCC</i> (2016)

United States Telecom Association v. FCC, 825 F. 3d 674, was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upholding an action by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the previous year in which broadband Internet was reclassified as a "telecommunications service" under the Communications Act of 1934, after which Internet service providers (ISPs) were required to follow common carrier regulations.

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to limitations on First Amendment-based free speech placed by private operators. The Court held that a public access station was not considered a state actor for purposes of evaluating free speech issues in a 5–4 ruling split along ideological lines. Prior to the Court's decision, analysts believed that the case had the potential to determine whether limitations on free speech on social media violate First Amendment rights. However, the Court's narrow holding avoided that issue.

References

  1. 1 2 Obar, Jonathan A. (2009). "Beyond Cynicism: A Review of the FCC's Reasoning for Modifying the Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership rule". Communication Law and Policy . 14 (4): 479–525. doi:10.1080/10811680903238084. S2CID   144522043.
  2. 1 2 3 Terry, Christopher; Schmitz, Stephen; Silberberg, Eliezer Lee Joseph (2020). "The Score Is 4-0: FCC Media Ownership Policy, Prometheus Radio Project, and Judicial Review". Federal Communication Law Journal . 73 (1): 99–144.
  3. ↑ Yu, Roger (August 11, 2016). "FCC retains media cross-ownership rules". USA Today . Retrieved December 18, 2020.
  4. ↑ Prometheus Radio Project, et al v. FCC, et al, 939 , 567(U.S. 3rd cir.September 23, 2019).
  5. ↑ Brodkin, Jon (September 24, 2019). "FCC loses in court, judges say agency would fail "intro statistics class"". Ars Technica . Retrieved December 18, 2020.
  6. ↑ Gardner, Eriq (April 17, 2020). "FCC Takes Marathon Battle Over Media Ownership Rules to Supreme Court". The Hollywood Reporter . Retrieved December 18, 2020.
  7. ↑ Goldsmith, Jill (October 2, 2020). "Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Longstanding FCC Case On Relaxing Media Ownership Rules". Deadline Hollywood . Retrieved December 18, 2020.
  8. ↑ Gardner, Eriq (January 19, 2021). "Supreme Court Hears Argument Over Media Ownership Rules". The Hollywood Reporter . Retrieved January 19, 2021.
  9. ↑ Cullins, Ashely (April 1, 2021). "Supreme Court Allows FCC to Move Forward With Changes to Media Ownership Rules". The Hollywood Reporter . Retrieved April 1, 2021.
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.