The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared receptive to industry arguments that the court should overturn, or at least narrow, the Chevron doctrine, which gives agencies like the FCC and FTC deference in interpreting laws that Congress passes. The court heard oral argument Wednesday for more than 3.5 hours in two cases challenging Chevron deference, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Commerce. Both concern fishing regulations and don’t touch directly on communications regulation.
Connecticut low-power TV broadcaster Radio Communications Corp. wants the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn an FCC order creating a window for certain LPTV stations to upgrade to Class A status. “Review is required” because the FCC’s implementation of the Low-Power Protection Act “fails to protect, in a very substantial manner, Low Power Television stations and licenses (LPTV), and the newly created Class A stations, as required by Congress,” said a petition for review filed with the D.C. Circuit Jan. 10 and posted Thursday. The order, parts of which will take effect Feb. 9, would open a one-year window only for LPTV stations that broadcast a minimum of 18 hours a day, carry three hours per week of local programming and are located in markets of 95,000 households or fewer -- and that already met those requirements for the 90 days prior to the LPPA's Jan. 5, 2023, approval by Congress. The petition asks the court to review the order on an expedited basis, stay it, find it unlawful and rule that RCC isn’t precluded from applying for the window, that program content can’t be used to deny Class A licenses and that Class A stations can assert must-carry in their markets.
Communications Litigation Today is tracking the below lawsuits involving appeals of FCC actions. Cases marked with an * were terminated since the last update. Cases in bold are new since the last update.
Two FCC commissioners say social media companies' embrace of U.S. Supreme Court precedent is misplaced when it comes to their arguments in the challenges before SCOTUS of Texas and Florida social media laws (see 2309290020) that such platforms have a First Amendment right to censor users' speech. Writing last week in the Yale Journal on Regulation, Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington said SCOTUS has never held that the First Amendment gives dominant companies like big social media "a freewheeling right to censor others’ speech." Pointing to such SCOTUS precedent as its Turner decision, requiring cable systems to carry broadcast TV channels, the Republican commissioners said the high court has allowed the government to apply anti-discrimination requirements to corporations in ways consistent with the First Amendment. The commissioners said social media regulations like Texas' House Bill 20 "are easily distinguished" from regulations struck down on First Amendment grounds in decisions such as Tornillo, which involved a Florida law requiring newspapers to run partisan editorial content. "Indeed, HB20 touches none of the First Amendment third rails that were at play in those cases," they said. When considering such issues as market power and the degree to which the regulated entity makes individualized decisions about speech rather than being a common carrier of speech, "it is clear that the government can, in the appropriate case, apply anti-discrimination rules to social media platforms," they said. "Texas’s HB20 is one of those cases."
Another shareholder derivative lawsuit seeks to hold AT&T’s current and former CEOs and chief financial officers, plus 12 current and former board members, accountable for allegedly covering up between March 2020 and July 27, 2023, what they knew about the existence and prevalence of toxic lead cables in AT&T’s possession, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act. The latest suit over legacy lead cables joins others filed in recent months against AT&T and Verizon (see 2308020046).
The 2018 quadrennial review order supports Gray Television's arguments against the FCC’s $518,000 enforcement action over a 2020 transaction involving an Anchorage station, Gray told the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a response letter Thursday. Gray was responding to an FCC letter last week giving the court notice of the QR order, which was released in December. Gray has argued that the agency created a requirement for what data is used to determine station rankings without notice when it issued the forfeiture in 2022 (see 2307240065). Ratings data from the time of the transaction showed Gray already owned two of the top-four stations in the market, which the broadcaster has argued means the Anchorage deal didn’t result in a new top-four combination -- instead an existing top-four combination added another station. The FCC has argued that this ratings data wasn’t available to Gray when it made the deal and so is invalid. The QR order changes the ranking methodology to use “available data over a 12-month period immediately preceding the date of application,” Gray told the court Thursday. The inclusion of the word “available” in the QR order “underscores its prior absence, and it highlights the FCC’s failure to provide Gray with fair notice of such a requirement which the FCC invented to justify penalizing Gray,” said the broadcaster. The QR order also doesn’t show that applying the agency’s rule against affiliation swaps to Gray’s purchase of a station’s network affiliation “furthered an interest in competition, as the First Amendment requires,” Gray told the court. “Thus, nothing the FCC said in the 2023 Order cures the fatal defect in the Forfeiture Order.” Oral argument in the case is set for March.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court removed the consolidated pole attachment appeal of Duke Energy and AT&T against the FCC from the oral argument calendar for Jan. 24 and granted their unopposed joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the case (see 2401080036), said the court’s order Monday (dockets 22-2220 and 23-1010). The appeal was dismissed “on terms agreed to by the parties,” said the order.
Consumers' Research asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant its cert petition challenging the FCC's method for determining the USF quarterly contribution factor, saying the case presents "an excellent vehicle for addressing the contours of nondelegation whose abuses highlight the dangers of delegated and politically unaccountable power." Docketed Friday (docket 23-743), the petition asked the court to review a Dec. 14 decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the Q4 2022 contribution factor (see 2312140058). Responses to the new petition are due Feb. 8.
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Milwaukee agrees with Verizon that the crowds expected in the Deer District for the 2024 Republican National Convention in July “will cause significant wireless service gaps and serious public safety risks,” said Verizon’s reply brief Monday (docket 2:23-cv-01581) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin in Milwaukee. The brief is in support of Verizon's motion for a preliminary injunction to force the city’s approval of permits for the installation of poles and small cells outside the Fiserv Forum (see 2312050022).