National Broadcasting Co v. United States

Citation316 U.S. 447,62 S.Ct. 1214,86 L.Ed. 1586
Decision Date01 June 1942
Docket NumberNo. 1025,1025
PartiesNATIONAL BROADCASTING CO., Inc., et al. v. UNITED STATES et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Messrs. John T. Cahill and David M. Wood, both of New York City, for appellants.

Mr. Telford Taylor, of Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a companion case to Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., v. United Stated, 316 U.S. 407, 62 S.Ct. 1194, 86 L.Ed. —-, decided this day. Both present substantially similar facts and the same issues of law.

Appellant, National Broadcasting Company, maintains two radio broadcasting systems, the 'blue network' and the 'red network'. The two other appellants operate radio broadcasting stations licensed by the Communica- tions Commission, and have entered into contracts with National similar to those involved in the Columbia case and to those of other stations which participate in National's networks.

Appellants brought the present suit in the Southern District of New York to set aside the order of the Commission of May 2, 1941, as amended by its order of October 11, 1941, promulgating the Chain Broadcasting Regulations which we considered in the Columbia case, on the grounds that the order is beyond the Commission's statutory authority or, if within it, that the statute is an unconstitutional delegation of the legislative power of Congress in violation of Article I, § 1 of the Constitution, and operates to deprive appellants of property without the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

The district court of three judges dismissed the complaint, D.C., 44 F.Supp. 688, holding that the Commission's order is not reviewable under the provisions of § 402(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1093, 47 U.S.C. § 402(a), 47 U.S.C.A. § 402(a), and the Urgent Deficiencies Act, 38 Stat. 219, 28 U.S.C. § 47, 28 U.S.C.A. § 47, but stayed the operation of the order pending direct appeal to this Court.

According to the allegations of the bill of complaint, National conducts its broadcasting business in substantially the same manner as Columbia. It establishes telephone wire connections with licensed broadcasting stations with which it enters into contracts for limited periods for chain broadcasting of its radio programs. These contracts do not require that the station shall broadcast the programs of no other chain than National. But a feature of them is the option given to National for use of the station on 28 days' notice for certain specified periods of radio time in broadcasting commercial network programs provided by National. It is alleged that because of the contract provisions the regulations will require the stations affiliated with National to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • National Broadcasting Co v. United States Columbia Broadcasting System v. Same
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1943
    ...Term in Columbia Broadcasting System v. United States, 316 U.S. 407, 62 S.Ct. 1194, 86 L.Ed. 1563, and Nat. Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 316 U.S. 447, 62 S.Ct. 1214, 86 L.Ed. 1586, that the suits could be maintained under § 402(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1093, 47 U......
  • Sprintcom v. Puerto Rico Regulations and Permits, Civil No. 07-1026 (JP).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • May 22, 2007
    ...Interstate Commerce Com. v. Hoboken M.R. Co., 320 U.S. 368, 64 S.Ct. 159, 88 L.Ed. 107 (1943); National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 316 U.S. 447, 62 S.Ct. 1214, 86 L.Ed. 1586 (1942); Columbia Broadcasting System v. United States, 316 U.S. 407, 62 S.Ct. 1194, 86 L.Ed. 1563 (1942); Uni......
  • Radio Corp. of America v. United States, Civ. A. No. 50-C-1459.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • December 20, 1950
    ...matter could be appealed to the Supreme Court. Holding that the District Court had jurisdiction the Supreme Court reversed. 316 U.S. 447, 62 S.Ct. 1214, 86 L.Ed. 1586. In doing so, it suggested, 316 U.S. at page 449, 62 S.Ct. at page 1215, 86 L.Ed. 1586, "the stay now in effect will be cont......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT