Project v. Fed. Communications Comm'n
| Decision Date | 07 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | 08–4454,08–4471,08–4462,08–4459,08–4475,08–4477,08–4461,08–4470,08–4458,08–4457,08–4463,08–4478,08–4465,08–4464,08–4456,Nos. 08–3078,08–4455,08–4468,08–4652.,08–4467,08–4472,s. 08–3078 |
| Citation | 652 F.3d 431,53 Communications Reg. (P&F) 533 |
| Parties | PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECTv.FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of AmericaPrometheus Radio Project, Petitioner in Nos. 08–3078/08–4468Media Alliance, Petitioner in No. 08–4454Free Press, Petitioner in No. 08–4455Newspaper Association of America, Petitioner in No. 08–4456Fox Television Stations, Inc., Petitioner in No. 08–4457Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Petitioner in No. 08–4458The Scranton Times, L.P., Petitioner in No. 08–4459Cox Enterprises, Inc., Petitioner in No. 08–4461Belo Corporation, Petitioner in No. 08–4462Morris Communications Company, LLC, Petitioner in No. 08–4463Gannett Company, Inc., Petitioner in No. 08–4464CBS Corporation, Petitioner in No. 08–4465Office of Communications of the United Church of Christ, Inc., Petitioner in No. 08–4467Tribune Company, Petitioner in No. 08–4470Bonneville International Corporation, Petitioner in No. 08–4471National Association of Broadcasters, Petitioner in No. 08–4472Clear Channel Communications, Inc., Petitioner in No. 08–4475CBS Broadcasting Inc., Petitioner in No. 08–4477Media General Inc., Petitioner in No. 08–4478Coalition of Smaller Market Television Stations; Raycom Media Inc., Petitioner in No. 08–4652. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Angela J. Campbell, Esquire, Adrienne T. Biddings, Esquire, Institute for Public Representation, Georgetown Law, Washington, DC, for Petitioners, Prometheus Radio Project; Media Alliance; Office of Communications of the United Church of Christ, Inc.Parul Desai, Esquire, Andrew J. Schwartzman, Esquire (Argued), Media Access Project, Washington, DC, for Petitioner, Prometheus Radio Project; Media Alliance.Marvin Ammori, Esquire, Coriell S. Wright, I, Esquire (Argued), Free Press, Washington, DC, for Petitioner, Free Press.Clifford M. Harrington, Esquire, Jack McKay, Esquire, Paul A. Cicelski, Esquire, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw & Pittman, Washington, DC, for Petitioner, Sinclair Broadcast.Bruce T. Reese, Esquire, Bonneville International Corporation, Salt Lake City, UT, Lewis A. Tollin, Esquire, Craig E. Gilmore, Esquire, Kenneth E. Satten, Esquire, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, Washington, DC, for Petitioner, Scranton Times/Scranton Tribune; Bonneville International Corporation.Jonathan H. Anschell, Esquire, CBS Broadcasting Inc., Studio City, CA, Susanna M. Lowy, Esquire, CBS Broadcasting Inc., New York, NY, for Petitioner, CBS Broadcasting Inc.Jessica Marventano, Esquire, Sr. Vice President Government Affairs, Clear Channel Communications, Inc., Washington, DC, for Petitioner, Clear Channel Communications, Inc.Eve Reed, Esquire, John E. Fiorini, III, Esquire (Argued), James R.W. Bayes, Esquire, Richard E. Wiley, Esquire, Kathleen A. Kirby, Esquire, Andrew G. McBride, Esquire (Argued), Kurt A. Wimmer, Esquire, Helgi C. Walker, Esquire (Argued), Jamie Alan Aycock, Esquire, Martha E. Heller, Esquire, Maria L. Mullarkey, Esquire, Richard J. Bodorff, Esquire, Christiane M. McKnight, Esquire, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioners, Newspaper Association of America; Morris Communications Company, LLC; Clear Channel Communications, Inc.; Belo Corporation; Gannett Company, Inc.; CBS Corporation; CBS Broadcasting Inc.Ellen S. Agress, Esquire, News Corporation, New York, NY, Maureen A. O'Connell, News Corporation, Washington, DC, for Petitioner, Fox Television Stations, Inc.Carter G. Phillips, Esquire, Ryan C. Morris, Esquire, James C. Owens, Jr., Esquire, Mark D. Schneider, Esquire, Virginia A. Seitz, Esquire (Argued), Jennifer B. Tatel, Esquire, R. Clark Wadlow, Esquire, James P. Young, Esquire, Sidley Austin, Washington, DC, for Petitioner, Tribune Company; Fox Television Stations Inc.George L. Mahoney, Esquire, Media General, Inc., Richmond, VA, for Petitioner, Media General Inc.Michael D. Hays, Esquire (Argued), Kevin F. Reed, Esquire, M. Anne Swanson, Esquire, John R. Feore, Jr., Esquire, Dow Lohnes, Washington, DC, for Petitioner, Fox Television Stations, Inc.; Cox Entertainment, Inc.; Media General Inc.Jane E. Mago, Esquire, Jerianne Timmerman, Esquire, National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, DC, Elaine J. Goldenberg, Esquire (Argued), Joshua M. Segal, Esquire, Jenner & Block, Washington, DC, for Petitioner, National Association of Broadcasters.Robert A. Long, Jr. Esquire, Enrique Armijo, Esquire, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, for Petitioner, Coalition of Smaller Market TV Stations; Raycom Media Inc. Christopher Murray, Esquire, Washington, DC, Glenn B. Manishin, Esquire (Argued), Duane Morris LLP, Washington, DC, for Intervenor–Petitioner, Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union.Austin C. Schlick, General Counsel, Jacob M. Lewis (Argued), Acting Deputy General Counsel, Daniel M. Armstrong, III, Associate General Counsel, Matthew Berry, Esquire, James M. Carr, Esquire, P. Michele Ellison, Esquire, Joseph R. Palmore, Esquire, C. Grey Pash, Jr., Esquire, Federal Communications Commission, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, Christine A. Varney, Assistant Attorney General, Nancy C. Garrison, Esquire, Catherine G. O'Sullivan, Esquire, Robert J. Wiggers, Esquire, Robert B. Nicholson, Esquire, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondents, Federal Communications Commission; United States of America.Before: SCIRICA, AMBRO and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.
In Prometheus Radio Project v. F.C.C., 373 F.3d 372 (3d Cir.2004) (“ Prometheus I ”), we considered revisions by the Federal Communications Commission (the “Commission” or “FCC”) to its regulations governing broadcast media ownership promulgated following its 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review. See 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 F.C.C.R. 13,620, 2003 WL 21511828 (July 2, 2003) (the “ 2003 Order”). We affirmed the Commission's authority to regulate media ownership but remanded aspects of the Commission's 2003 Order that were not adequately supported by the record, including its numerical limits for local television ownership, local radio ownership rule, rule on cross-ownership of media within local markets, and repeal of the failed station solicitation rule. Prometheus I, 373 F.3d at 382, 421.
In these consolidated appeals, we consider the Commission's most recent revisions to its media ownership rules. In December 2007, following its 2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review, the Commission...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California v. Bernhardt
...record to support their objections to the rule and thereby enhance the quality of judicial review." (quoting Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC , 652 F.3d 431, 449 (3d Cir. 2011) )). However, "the public is not entitled to review and comment on every piece of information utilized during rule m......
-
Centro Legal De La Raza v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review
...is the ‘usual’ amount of time allotted for a comment period[.]" Becerra , 381 F. Supp. 3d at 1177 (quoting Prometheus Radio Project v. F.C.C. , 652 F.3d 431, 453 (3d Cir. 2011), and internal citation omitted).Moreover, in the NPRM and the Final Rule, defendants acknowledged that the Rule "c......
-
La. Forestry Ass'n Inc. v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of Labor
...We likewise hold that the DOL provided the “reasoned analysis supported by the evidence” required by the APA. Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 652 F.3d 431, 462 (3d Cir.2011). Appellants' challenge to the DOL's compliance with this requirement focuses on the DOL's purported failure to respo......
-
United States v. Reynolds
...of notice and comment for agencies to “maintain[ ] a flexible and open-minded attitude towards its own rules.” Prometheus Radio Project v. F.C.C., 652 F.3d 431, 449 (3d Cir.2011). Second, a need to regulate affected parties does not create the urgency necessary to establish good cause. Our ......
-
Regulated Industries
...percent). 342. Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 824 F.3d 33, 50 (3d Cir. 2016). 343. Id. at 58. 344. See Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 652 F.3d 431, 470 (3d Cir. 2011). 345. Prometheus Radio, 824 F.3d at 52-53. 346. See 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review, Promoting Diversification of Own......
-
Antitrust and the Media
...Circuit in 2004, Prometheus Radio Project, 373 F.3d at 372, and then again, by the same panel, in 2011, Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 652 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2011). A major theme of the court’s disagreement with the Commission was the Commission’s assumption that the presence of new intern......
-
Control, Creators, and Content: The Past, Present, and Future of Diversity in Media Ownership
...I ), 373 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2004) (subsequent history omitted) 98. See generally Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC ( Prometheus II ), 652 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2011) (subsequent history omitted). The plaintiff, Prometheus Radio Project, is a nonprofit organization that seeks social change by advo......
-
The Score Is 4-0: FCC Media Ownership Policy, Prometheus Radio Project, and Judicial Review.
...(Prometheus I), 373 F.3d 372, 383 (3d Cir. 2004). (7.) Id. at 388-89. (8.) Id. at 381; Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (Prometheus II), 652 F.3d 431, 437 (3d Cir. 2011); Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (Prometheus III), 824 F.3d 33, 37 (3d Cir. (9.) 47 U.S.C. [section] 533 (2018); Telecommu......