Term: 2020
Docket: 19-1231
Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project
- Pro
19-1231 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT DECISION BELOW: 939 F.3d 567 CONSOLIDATED WITH 19-1241 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 10/2/2020 QUESTION PRESENTED: To preserve competition and viewpoint diversity, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has historically restricted the ability of broadcasters to own multiple outlets in a single market. In Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 303 note, Congress directed the FCC to review these ownership rules every four years to "determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition," and to "repeal or modify any regulation [the FCC] determines to be no longer in the public interest." In 2003, the FCC sought to relax certain ownership rules that it had determined were no longer necessary in light of dramatically changed market conditions. In a series of three appeals spanning the past 17 years, however, the same divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has repeatedly vacated the FCC's attempts to reform its ownership rules. The effect of those decisions has been to maintain in effect decades- old FCC ownership restrictions that the agency believes to be outmoded. In the decision below, the panel majority vacated the FCC's revised ownership rules and other regulatory changes solely on the ground that the agency had not adequately analyzed the potential effect of the regulatory changes on female and minority ownership of broadcast stations. The question presented is as follows: Whether the court of appeals erred in vacating as arbitrary and capricious the FCC orders under review, which, among other things, relaxed the agency's cross- ownership restrictions to accommodate changed market conditions. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 17-1107, 17-1109, 17-1110, 17-1111, 18-1092, 18-1669, 18-1670, 18-1671, 18-2943, 18-3335
The U.S. Supreme Court case Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project in 2020 revolved around the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) decision to repeal or modify three of its media ownership rules, which had been put into place to prevent a single entity from owning too much media in one market. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated these changes, arguing that the FCC did not adequately consider how rule changes would impact female and minority ownership of broadcast media outlets. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision with unanimous agreement stating that the FCC made reasonable predictive judgments based on substantial evidence present at hand about potential impacts on minority and female ownership levels due to deregulation measures taken by it.
In the dissenting opinion for the Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project case, Justice Thomas argued that the Supreme Court should have taken this opportunity to clarify its administrative law jurisprudence. He disagreed with how his colleagues applied a standard of review known as arbitrary and capricious review in this case, arguing it was too deferential to agency decision-making. Instead, he suggested that courts should not second-guess agencies' factual determinations unless there is clear error or no evidence supporting them. Furthermore, he believed that courts should only set aside agency actions if they are clearly outside statutory authority or violate constitutional rights. In his view, these standards would provide more consistent guidance for lower courts reviewing agency decisions and better respect separation of powers principles by limiting judicial interference in executive branch functions.
