In WIRL Television Corp. v. United States et al., the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over broadcasting licenses. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had granted a television broadcast license to Midwest Television, Inc., denying the application of WIRL Television Corporation for the same channel in Peoria, Illinois. In response, WIRL filed suit against the FCC and Midwest TV claiming that they were unfairly denied their application due to procedural errors by the FCC during hearings on both applications. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Midwest TV and upheld its right to hold onto its broadcasting license despite objections from rival broadcaster WIRL who claimed it was more deserving of said license based on public interest considerations. The court found no evidence that there was any abuse of discretion or violation of statutory requirements by FCC when granting this license to Midwest TV instead.

In the dissenting opinion for WIRL TELEVISION CORP. v. UNITED STATES et al., it was argued that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had overstepped its authority by denying a television license to WIRL without proper consideration of public interest, convenience, and necessity. The FCC's decision was based on an arbitrary rule limiting licenses in any given area to one VHF and one UHF station per owner, which did not take into account individual circumstances or market conditions. Furthermore, it was contended that this rule unfairly penalized small businesses like WIRL who could not compete with larger corporations owning multiple stations across different markets. The dissent also criticized the majority's deference to administrative agencies such as the FCC, arguing that courts should play a more active role in reviewing their decisions for potential abuses of discretion.