Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commn. case brief

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commn. case brief summary

395 U.S. 367 (1969)

CASE SYNOPSIS

On writs of certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the parties in the two separate cases sought review of the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine and component rules by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC's position was upheld as constitutional in one case and the rules were held unconstitutional in the other.

CASE FACTS
The parties from separate cases below sought to determine the legality of the fairness doctrine and component rules promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a petitioner in one case and the respondent in the other. The first case applied the fairness doctrine to a particular broadcast, and the second case arose as an action to review the FCC's amendment of the regulations.


PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In the first case, the FCC determined that a radio station had failed to meet its obligation under the fairness doctrine. The FCC's position was upheld as constitutional by a Court of Appeals. After the first case began, the FCC amended the rules to make them more precise and enforceable. Another Court of Appeals held that the amended rules were unconstitutional.


DISCUSSION

• The Court disagreed and reversed the judgment in the second case and affirmed the judgment in the first. 
• The Court held that as enforced sharing of a scarce resource, the personal attack and political editorial rules were indistinguishable from the equal-time provision of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.S. § 315, which was a specific enactment of Congress to which the challenged regulations were important complements.

CONCLUSION
The Court affirmed the judgment that upheld the application of the fairness doctrine and reversed the judgment that held that the fairness doctrine and its component rules were unconstitutional. The Court held that in view of the scarcity of broadcast frequencies the Federal Communications Commission's role in allocating those frequencies in "the public interest" was both authorized by statute and constitutional.

Suggested Study Aids and Books