http://www.oyez.org/issues/economic-activity/cable-television/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>Is there a conceivable rational basis justifying the distinction between cable facilities that serve separately owned and managed buildings and those that serve one or more buildings under common ownership or management for purposes of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?</p><p>Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that section 602(7)(B)'s common-ownership distinction is constitutional because the statutory classification neither proceeded along suspect lines nor infringed fundamental constitutional rights. "As we have indicated," Justice Thomas concluded, "there are plausible rationales unrelated to the use of public rights-of-way for regulating cable facilities serving separately owned and managed buildings. The assumptions underlying these rationales may be erroneous, but the very fact that they are 'arguable' is sufficient, on rational-basis review, to 'immunize' the congressional choice from constitutional challenge." Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a concurring opinion.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_603/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1575/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_363/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_71_506/