In the case of Federal Communications Commission v. Schreiber et al., 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The dispute arose when Schreiber and others filed a complaint with FCC against radio station WJR for alleged unfairness and bias in its news coverage. After an investigation, FCC dismissed their complaints due to lack of substantial evidence showing that WJR had violated any provision under Section 315(a) or Section 312(a)(7) of the Communication Act which mandates fair treatment by broadcasters towards candidates during election campaigns. Dissatisfied with this decision, they sought judicial review but both District Court and Court of Appeals denied it on grounds that such decisions were not subject to court review unless there was a sanction imposed by FCC against broadcaster's license renewal application. However, upon reaching Supreme Court, it held that courts do have jurisdiction over such matters even if no sanctions are involved as long as petitioners can demonstrate 'aggrieved' status under section 402(b)(6) i.e., they suffered some direct injury or harm because of agency action.

In the dissenting opinion for the Federal Communications Commission v. Schreiber case, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold FCC's authority over television programming content infringed upon First Amendment rights of broadcasters and viewers alike. The dissenters believed that this ruling gave too much power to a government agency, allowing them to control what could or couldn't be aired on television based on their own subjective standards of "public interest". They contended that such an interpretation of the Communications Act would lead towards censorship and limit free speech in broadcasting media. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential political misuse of this power by those in charge at FCC. In essence, they felt that while some regulation is necessary for public welfare, giving unchecked discretionary powers to a regulatory body like FCC posed serious threats to freedom of expression as guaranteed under Constitution.