The case of Federal Communications Commission and United States v. Beach Communications, Inc., et al., in 1992 revolved around the constitutionality of a provision within the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. This act required cable television systems to obtain a franchise from local authorities but exempted facilities that served only dwelling units under common ownership or control (like apartment buildings). Beach Communications challenged this exemption as violating equal protection principles because it treated similar entities differently based on arbitrary distinctions. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the FCC and upheld the law's constitutionality. The court held that legislative classifications did not need to be perfect; they merely needed to bear some rational relation to legitimate governmental purposes. In this case, Congress could have reasonably concluded that franchising was unnecessary for facilities serving dwellings under common ownership due to their limited impact on public rights-of-way or viewer choice.

In the dissenting opinion for FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., Justice Stevens argued that the Court's majority decision failed to properly apply rational basis review and instead used a standard closer to absolute deference. He criticized the majority for accepting any hypothetical reason as sufficient justification for legislation, even if there was no evidence supporting it or if it contradicted empirical data. This approach, he contended, undermined judicial review and allowed potentially arbitrary or discriminatory laws to stand unchallenged. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that cable companies were not similarly situated with satellite master antenna television systems (SMATVs). In his perspective, both provided similar services and should be treated equally under law; thus different regulatory treatment constituted an equal protection violation.