Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC

Media Items
Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Harry F. Cole (on behalf of Respondent)
Margaret Polivy (on behalf of the Private Respondent)
Margot Polivy (Argued the cause for respondent Rainbow Broadcasting Company)
Gregory H. Guillot (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
J. Roger Wollenberg (on behalf of the Petitioner)
Daniel M. Armstrong (Argued the cause for the federal respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
89-453
Petitioner: 
Metro Broadcasting Inc.
Respondent: 
FCC
Consolidation: 
Astroline Communications Company Limited Partnership v. Shurberg Broadcasting of Hartford, Inc., et al, No. 89-700
Opinion: 
497 U.S. 547 (1990)
Categories: 
affirmative action, race, equal protection, race discrimination, discrimination
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC , 497 U.S. 547 (1990)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_453)
Facts of the Case: 

This case challenged the constitutionality of two minority preference policies of the Federal Communications Commission. Under the first policy challenged by Metro Broadcasting, Inc., minority applicants for broadcast licenses were given preference if all other relevant factors were roughly equal. The second policy, known as the "distress sale," was challenged by Shurberg Broadcasting of Hartford Inc. This policy allowed broadcasters in danger of losing their licenses to sell their stations to minority buyers before the FCC formally ruled on the viability of the troubled stations. This case was decided together with Astroline Communications Co. v. Shurberg Broadcasting, in which Faith Center Inc. made a "distress sale" of its television license to a minority outfit owned by Astroline. Shurberg, a non-minority applicant for a similar license, challenged the FCC's approval of Faith Center's sale to Astroline.

Question: 

Did the FCC's minority preference policies violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion: 

No. The Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, held that the FCC's minority preference policies were constitutional because they provided appropriate remedies for discrimination victims and were aimed at the advancement of legitimate congressional objectives for program diversity. The FCC's minority preference policies were closely related to, and substantially advanced, Congress's legitimate interest in affording the public a diverse array of programming options. The availability of program diversity serves the entire viewing and listening public, not just minorities, and is therefore consistent with First Amendment values. Finally, the Court noted that the FCC's minority preference policy did not unduly burden nonminorities. The FCC did not predetermine the number of distress sales, and could only invoke them in a small number of cases, when no competing bids were filed and the licensee elected to sell at a lower price rather than risk an FCC investigation (see also Adarand Constructors v. Pena).

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for FCC, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the minority, joined O'Connor's dissent
Rehnquist
Wrote the majority opinion
Brennan
Voted with the majority
White
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Wrote a regular concurrence
Stevens
Wrote a dissent
O'Connor
Voted with the minority, joined O'Connor's dissent, joined Kennedy's dissent
Scalia
Wrote a dissent, joined O'Connor's dissent
Kennedy

Full Opinion by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court