Cases by Issue - Cable Television Regulation

FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-603

Petitioner

Federal Communications Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Beach Communications, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 307 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1993

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1993

Advocates

Deborah C. Costlow (Argued the cause for the respondents)

John F. Manning (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Section 602(7)(B) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 provides that cable television systems be franchised by local governmental authorities, but exempts facilities serving "only subscribers in 1 or more multiple unit dwellings under common ownership, control, or management, unless such...facilities use any public right-of-way." When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled that satellite master antenna television (SMATV) systems, which typically receive a satellite signal through a rooftop dish and then retransmits the signal by wire to units within a building or a building complex, are subject to the franchise requirement if their transmission lines interconnect separately owned and managed buildings or if its lines use or cross any public right-of-way, Beach Communications, Inc. and other SMATV operators petitioned the Court of Appeals for review. Among other things, the appellate court found that section 602(7) violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because there was no rational basis for distinguishing between those facilities exempted by the statute and SMATV systems linking separately owned and managed buildings.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for FCC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Communication Act of 1934

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.

FCC v. Midwest Video Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1575

Petitioner

Federal Communications Commission

Respondent

Midwest Video Corp.

Consolidation

American Civil Liberties Union v. Federal Communications Commission et al., No. 77-1648

National Black Media Coalition et al. v. Midwest Video Corporation et al., No. 77-1662

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 689 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1979

Decided

Monday, April 2, 1979

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for petitioner in No. 77-1575 and in support of petitioners in Nos. 77-1648 and 77-1662 under this Court's Rule 21 (4))

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Midwest Video Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Communication Act of 1934

None

United States v. Midwest Video Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-506

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Midwest Video Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 649 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, June 7, 1972

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States et al)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

U.S. v. Southwestern Cable Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

363

Petitioner

U.S.

Respondent

Southwestern Cable Co.

Consolidation

No. 428

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

392 U.S. 157 (1968)

Argued

March 12-13, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for U.S., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Communication Act of 1934

None