Community Television of Southern California v. Gottfried Federal Communications Commission v. Gottfried

• Decision Date: 22 February 1983
• Docket Number: Nos. 81-298,81-799,s. 81-298
• Citation: 103 S.Ct. 885,74 L.Ed.2d 705,459 U.S. 498
• Parties: COMMUNITY TELEVISION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. Sue GOTTFRIED et al. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. Sue GOTTFRIED et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

459 U.S. 498

103 S.Ct. 885

74 L.Ed.2d 705

COMMUNITY TELEVISION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Petitioner,

v Sue GOTTFRIED et al.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Petitioner,

v. Sue GOTTFRIED et al.

Nos. 81-298, 81-799.

Argued Oct. 12, 1982.

Decided Feb. 22, 1983.

Syllabus

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides that no otherwise qualified handicapped individual shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Respondent Gottfried (respondent) filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting it to deny renewal of a public television station's license because the station allegedly (1) had failed to discharge its obligation under the Communications Act of 1934 to ascertain the problems, needs, and interests of the deaf and hearing-impaired population within its service area, and (2) had violated § 504. Respondent filed similar objections to the renewal of seven commercial television station licenses. Consolidating all eight proceedings, the FCC held that the licensees' efforts to ascertain the special needs of the community were adequate; that the facts alleged by respondent did not give rise to a substantial and material question whether any of the licensees had abused its discretion in its programming; that § 504 did not apply to the commercial licensees; and that while the public television station might be governed by § 504, the allegations against that station under § 504 were premature unless and until the agency with authority to enforce compliance determined that the station had violated the Rehabilitation Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed the portion of the FCC's order relating to the commercial stations but vacated the renewal of the public station's license and remanded for further proceedings. Because the public station as a recipient of federal financial assistance was under a duty to comply with § 504, the court, while not holding that the station had violated § 504 or that its programming efforts were less satisfactory than the commercial licensees' efforts, held that nevertheless a stricter "public interest" standard should be applied to a licensee covered by § 504 than to a commercial licensee, and that the FCC could not find the service of public stations to be adequate to justify license renewal without at least inquiring into their efforts to meet the programming needs of the hearing impaired.

Held: Section 504 does not require the FCC to review a public television station's license renewal application under a different standard than applies to a commercial licensee's renewal application. Pp. 508-512.

(a) Congress did not intend the Rehabilitation Act to impose any special enforcement obligation on the FCC. The FCC is not a funding agency and has no responsibility for enforcing § 504. Moreover, there is not a word in the Act's legislative history suggesting that the Act was intended to alter the FCC's standard for reviewing the programming decisions of public television licensees. Pp. 508-510.

(b) The fact that a public television station has a duty to comply with the Rehabilitation Act does not support the conclusion that the FCC must evaluate the station's service to the handicapped community by a more stringent standard than that applicable to commercial stations. P. 511.

(c) Unless and until a differential standard has been promulgated with respect to public television stations as against commercial stations, the FCC acts within its authority when it declines to impose a greater obligation to provide special programming for the hearing impaired on a public licensee than on a commercial licensee. Pp.511-512

210 U.S.App.D.C. 184, 655 F.2d 297, reversed in part.

Edgar F. Czarra, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner Community Tel. of Southern Cal.

Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Newark, N.J., for petitioner F.C.C.

Charles M. Firestone, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents Sue Gottfried et al.

[Amicus Curiae Information from page 499 intentionally omitted] Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented is whether § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ¹ requires the Federal Communications Commission to review a public television station's license renewal application under a different standard than it applies to a commercial licensee's renewal application. Contrary to the holding of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 655 F.2d 297, we conclude that it does not.

I

On October 28, 1977, respondent Sue Gottfried filed a formal petition with the Federal Communications Commission requesting it to deny renewal of the television license of station KCET-TV in Los Angeles. She advanced two principal grounds for denial: First, that the licensee had failed to discharge its obligation to ascertain the problems, needs, and interests of the deaf and hearing impaired population within its service area; and second, that the licensee had violated, and remained in violation of, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.²

Correspondence attached to Gottfried's petition included complaints about KCET-TV's failure to carry enough programming with special captioning ³ or other aids to benefit the hearing impaired members of the audience. The exhibits emphasized the station's failure to broadcast the ABC evening news in captioned form prior to May 23, 1977, and its subsequent failure to broadcast the captioned program during prime time.

In a verified opposition to the petition, the licensee recounted in some detail its efforts to ascertain the problems of the community it served, including the deaf and the hearing impaired, by a community leader survey and by a general public survey. App. in No. 79-1722 (CADC), pp. 102-105. The licensee also described its programming efforts to respond to the special needs of the hearing impaired,⁴ and explained why its two daily broadcasts of the ABC captioned news had usually been scheduled for 11:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. The licensee specifically denied that it had violated § 504 and averred that the Commission is not an appropriate forum for the adjudication of Rehabilitation Act claims. App. in No. 79-1722 (CADC), p. 113.

On December 22, 1977, Gottfried filed a verified response, criticizing the station's public survey, and commenting further on the station's failure to rebroadcast ABC captioned news programs before May 23, 1977. The response renewed the charge that the station had violated § 504,⁵ and asserted that the Federal Communications Commission was indeed the proper forum to evaluate that charge.⁶

Gottfried also filed separate formal objections to the renewal of seven commercial television station licenses in the Los Angeles area. E.g., App. in No. 79-1722 (CADC), p. 199. The Commission consolidated all eight proceedings and ruled on Gottfried's objections in a single memorandum opinion adopted on August 8, 1978. 69 F.C.C.2d 451.

The Commission first reviewed its own efforts to encourage the industry to serve the needs of the hearing impaired. In 1970, the Commission had issued a Public Notice to all licensees, advising them of the special needs of the deaf in responding to emergency situations as well as in appreciating general television programming.⁷ In 1972, the Commission had granted authority to the Public Broadcasting System to being experimentation with a "closed" captioning system, which would enable hearing-impaired persons with specially equipped television sets to receive captioned information that could not be seen by the remainder of the viewing audience.⁸ In 1976, the Commission had adopted a rule requiring television licensees to broadcast emergency information visually. In that year, however, the Commission had also concluded that there were so many unanswered questions—both technical and financial concerning the most effective means of improving television service for the hearing impaired, that it remained "the responsibility of each licensee to determine how it could most effectively meet those needs." ⁹ The Commission summarized its views concerning mandated forms of technology by noting that "there is no requirement that any television licensee—commercial or noncommercial—provide open or closed captioning or any other form of special visual program material other than for broadcasting emergency information." Id., at 455.

The Commission then turned to Gottfried's objections to the eight license renewals. It approached the question whether the renewals would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity from three different perspectives: ascertainment, programming, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. It first found that the licensees' efforts to ascertain the special needs of the community were adequate. Next, it held that the facts alleged by Gottfried did not give rise to a substantial and material question whether any of the eight stations had abused its discretion in its selection of programming matter. The Commission explained that it is more difficult to provide special programming for the hearing impaired than for other segments of the community; ¹⁰ in the absence of any Commission requirement for specialized programming techniques, it found "no basis to fault a licensee for failure to provide these options for the deaf and hearing impaired in the station service area." Id., at 458.

The Commission held that § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act had no application to the seven commercial licensees because they were not alleged to have received any federal financial assistance. The Commission agreed that KCET-TV might be governed by § 504, and that a violation of the Act would need to be considered in a license renewal proceeding, but it saw no reason to consider § 504 in the absence of an adverse finding by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare—"the proper governmental agency to...