Prometheus Radio Project v. F.C.C., No. 03-3388.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtAmbro
Citation373 F.3d 372
PartiesPROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America Prometheus Radio Project, Media General, Inc., National Association of Broadcasters, Network Affiliated Stations Alliance, ABC Television Affiliates Association, CBS Television Affiliates Association and NBC Television Affiliates, Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. and Fox Television Stations, Inc., Viacom Inc., National Broadcasting Company, Inc., and Telemundo Communications Group, Inc., Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Media Alliance, Paxson Communications Corporation, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States, Tribune Company, Paxon Communications Corporation, Emmis Communications Corporation, Center for Digital Democracy and Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, Clear Channel Communications, American Hispanic Owned Radio Association, Civil Rights Forum on Communications Policy, League of United Latin American Citizens, Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, National Asian American Telecommunications Association, National Association of Latino Independent Producers, National Coalition of Hispanic Organizations, National Council of La Raza, National Hispanic Media Coalition, National Indian Telecommunications Institute, National Urban League, Native American Public Telecommunications, Inc., PRLDEF-Institute for Puerto Rican Policy, Unity: Journalists of Color, Inc. and Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press.
Decision Date24 June 2004
Docket NumberNo. 03-4072.,No. 04-1956.,No. 03-3651.,No. 03-4073.,No. 03-3950.,No. 03-3577.,No. 03-3708.,No. 03-3578.,No. 03-3675.,No. 03-3388.,No. 03-3665.,No. 03-3894.,No. 03-3580.,No. 03-3951.,No. 03-3582.,No. 03-3581.,No. 03-3579.
373 F.3d 372
PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America Prometheus Radio Project, Media General, Inc., National Association of Broadcasters, Network Affiliated Stations Alliance, ABC Television Affiliates Association, CBS Television Affiliates Association and NBC Television Affiliates, Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. and Fox Television Stations, Inc., Viacom Inc., National Broadcasting Company, Inc., and Telemundo Communications Group, Inc., Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Media Alliance, Paxson Communications Corporation, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States, Tribune Company, Paxon Communications Corporation, Emmis Communications Corporation, Center for Digital Democracy and Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, Clear Channel Communications, American Hispanic Owned Radio Association, Civil Rights Forum on Communications Policy, League of United Latin American Citizens, Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, National Asian American Telecommunications Association, National Association of Latino Independent Producers, National Coalition of Hispanic Organizations, National Council of La Raza, National Hispanic Media Coalition, National Indian Telecommunications Institute, National Urban League, Native American Public Telecommunications, Inc., PRLDEF-Institute for Puerto Rican Policy, Unity: Journalists of Color, Inc. and Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press.
No. 03-3388.
No. 03-3577.
No. 03-3578.
No. 03-3579.
No. 03-3580.
No. 03-3581.
No. 03-3582.
No. 03-3651.
No. 03-3665.
No. 03-3675.
No. 03-3708.
No. 03-3894.
No. 03-3950.
No. 03-3951.
No. 03-4072.
No. 03-4073.
No. 04-1956.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued February 11, 2004.
Filed June 24, 2004.

Page 373

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 374

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 375

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 376

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 377

Andrew Jay Schwartzman (Argued), Cheryl A. Leanza, Media Access Project, Washington, DC, for Prometheus Radio Project, Center for Digital Democracy and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

Page 378

Shelby D. Green, White Plains, NY, for National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States.

Samuel L. Spear, Spear Wilderman Borish Endy Spear & Runckel, Philadelphia, PA, for Prometheus Radio Project.

Angela J. Campbell, (Argued), James A. Bachtell, Karen Henein, Institute for Public Representation, Washington, DC, for Media Alliance and Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc.

Glen B. Manishin, (Argued), Stephanie A. Joyce, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Vienna, VA, for Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America.

Robert A. Long, Jr., Kevin C. Newsom, Heidi C. Doerhoff, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, for CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, NBC Television Affiliates and Network Affiliated Stations Alliance.

Wade H. Hargrove, Mark J. Prak, Brooks, Pierce, Mclendon, Humphry & Leonard, Raleigh, NC, for ABC Television Affiliates Association.

Henk Brands (Argued), Patrick S. Campbell, John H. Longwell, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC, for Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., Fox Television Stations, Inc. and Viacom Inc.

Michael K. Kellogg, Mark L. Evans, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans, PLLC, Washington, DC, for National Broadcasting Company, Inc. and Telemundo Communications Group, Inc.

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. (Argued), Ian Heath Gershengorn, Elaine J. Goldenberg, Jenner & Block, LLC, Washington, DC, Henry L. Baumann, Jack N. Goodman, Jerianne Timmerman, National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, DC, for National Association of Broadcasters.

John R. Feore, Jr., Michael D. Hays, Kenneth D. Salomon, M. Anne Swanson, Theodore L. Radway, Jason E. Rademacher, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Millcreek Broadcasting, LLC, Media General, Inc., Simmons Media Group and Paxson Communications Corporation.

John E. Fiorini III, Helgi C. Walker,* Eve Klindera Reed,* Andrew G. McBride,* Richard J. Bodorff,* James R. Bayes, Kathleen A. Kirby, Richard E. Wiley, (Argued), Martha E. Heller, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, Washington, DC, Kathryn R. Schmeltzer, (Argued), Barry H. Gottfried, (Argued), Tony Lin, Paul A. Cicelski, Scott R. Flick, Christopher J. Sadowski, Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington, DC, for Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. and Univision Communications Inc.

Miguel A. Estrada, (Argued), Michael J. Edney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

Carter G. Phillips, (Argued), R. Clark Wadlow, Richard D. Klingler, James P. Young, Anita L. Wallgren, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, Washington, DC, Crane H. Kenney, Tribune Company, Chicago, for Tribune Company.

Jerome M. Marcus, (Argued), Jonathan Auerbach, Berger and Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Dianne Smith, Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc., Raleigh, NC, for Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.

Page 379

David Honig, Nicolaine Lazarre, (Argued), Fatima Fofana, Julie Smith, Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, Washington, DC, for American Hispanic Owned Radio Association, Civil Rights Forum on Communications Policy, League of United Latin American Citizens, Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, National Asian American Telecommunications Association, National Association of Latino Independent Producers, National Coalition of Hispanic Organizations, National Council of La Raza, National Hispanic Media Coalition, National Indian Telecommunications Institute, National Urban League, Native American Public Telecommunications, Inc., PRLDEF-Institute for Puerto Rican Policy, Unity: Journalists of Color, Inc. and Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press.

Stephen D. Gavin, Katrina C. Gleber, Patton Boggs LLP, Washington, DC, for Nassau Broadcasting Holdings, Inc., and Nassau Broadcasting II, LLC.

David A. Irwin, Irwin, Campbell & Tannenwald, Washington, DC, for Family Stations, Inc., Sunbelt Communications Company, Press Communications, LLC and Diversified Communications.

James L. Winston, Rubin, Winston, Diercks, Harris & Cooke, Washington, DC, for National Association of Black Broadcasters, Inc. and Rainbow Push Coalition, Inc.

R. Hewitt Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Makan Delrahim, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Catherine G. O'Sullivan, Nancy C. Garrison, James J. Fredricks, United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Washington, DC, for United States of America.

John A. Rogovin, General Counsel (Argued), Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel, Jacob M. Lewis, Associate General Counsel (Argued), C. Grey Pash, Jr., Nandan M. Joshi, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC, for the Federal Communications Commission.

Before SCIRICA, Chief Judge, AMBRO and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

AMBRO, Circuit Judge.


 Table of Contents
                 I. Background .........................................................................382
                 A. The 1934 Communications Act and Early Broadcast Ownership
                 Regulation ...................................................................382
                 B. Deregulation Initiatives .......................................................383
                 C. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 .............................................384
                 D. Regulatory Review Since 1996 ...................................................384
                 E. The Commission's 2003 Report and Order .........................................386
                 F. The Order's Modification of Broadcast Media Ownership Rules ....................386
                 1. Local Television Ownership ..............................................386
                 2. Local Radio Ownership ...................................................387
                 3 & 4. Newspaper/Broadcast and Radio/Television Cross-Ownership ................387
                 5. National Television Ownership ...........................................388
                 6. Dual Network Rule .......................................................388
                 G. Procedural History of the Current Appeals ......................................388
                 H. Subsequent Legislation .........................................................389
                 II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review ................................................389
                 A. Standard of Review Under the Administrative Procedure Act.......................389
                 B. Standard of Review Considerations Under Section 202(h)..........................390
                

Page 380

 1. "Determine whether any such rules are necessary in the public
                 interest." ............................................................391
                 2. "Repeal or modify any regulations it determines to be no longer
                 in the public interest." ..............................................394
                 C. Conclusion .....................................................................395
                III. Mootness and the National Television Ownership Rule ................................395
                 IV. Cross-Ownership Rules ..............................................................397
                 A. Regulatory Background and the 2002 Biennial Review .............................397
                 B. The Commission's decision not to retain a ban on newspaper/broadcast
                 cross-ownership is justified under § 202(h) and is supported by record
                 evidence......................................................................398
                 1. Newspaper/broadcast combinations can promote localism....................398
                 2. A blanket prohibition on newspaper/broadcast combinations is
                 not necessary to protect diversity ....................................399
                 C. The Commission's decision to retain some limits on common ownership of
                 different-type media outlets was constitutional and did not violate
                 § 202(h) .....................................................................400
                 1. Continuing to regulate cross-media ownership is in the public
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
78 practice notes
  • Temple-Inland, Inc. v. Cook, Civ. No. 14-654-GMS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • June 28, 2016
    ...Am. Exp. Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Sidamon – Eristoff , 669 F.3d 359, 371 (3d Cir.2012) (quoting Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC , 373 F.3d 372, 428 (3d Cir.2004) ). A holder generally has no property interest in abandoned property. Delaware , 507 U.S. at 502, 113 S.Ct. 1550 (stating t......
  • Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City, Civ. No. 19-22182 (KM) (JBC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • March 24, 2021
    ...property interest." Park Restoration, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch. , 855 F.3d 519, 526 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC , 373 F.3d 372, 428–29 (3d Cir. 2004) ). Second, I evaluate the plaintiff's claim that their property was taken from them, asking: "(1) was there a taking......
  • In re of Verizon Communications Inc., 05-75
    • United States
    • Federal Communications Commission Decisions
    • November 17, 2005
    ...basis when defining relevant geographic markets), aff'd in part, remanded in part on other grounds, Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 (D.C. Cir. 2003). [179] See Verizon/MCI Public Interest Statement at 4; see also infra note 188. [180] ACN et al. claim that the application prov......
  • Ellis v. Tribune Television Co., Docket No. 05-1983-CV.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 29, 2006
    ...of the revised cross-ownership rule might have been determinative, that rule never took effect. In Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372, 382 (3d Cir.2004), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2902, 162 L.Ed.2d 310 (2005), the Third Circuit stayed the FCC from implementing the rev......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
75 cases
  • New York v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 18-CV-2921 (JMF)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • January 15, 2019
    ...and capricious decisionmaking." (quoting State Farm , 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856 ) ); see also Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC , 373 F.3d 372, 420-21 (3d Cir. 2004) (vacating an agency's repeal of a rule where the agency failed to consider or even acknowledge "the effect of it......
  • American Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Sidamon–Eristoff, No. 10–4328.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • January 5, 2012
    ...takings claim, Amex must show that the State's action affected a “legally cognizable property interest.” Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372, 428 (3d Cir.2004) (citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) and Webb's, 449 U.......
  • Aarp v. E.E.O.C., No. 05-CV-509.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • September 27, 2005
    ...of review is "narrow, and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency." Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372, 389 (3d Cir.2004) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.E......
  • Pa., Dep't of Human Servs. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15–CV–1169
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • March 13, 2017
    ...agency must articulate a "rational connection between the facts found and the choice made." Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC , 373 F.3d 372, 389–90 (3d Cir. 2004), as amended (June 3, 2016) (quoting State Farm , 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856 ).III. DiscussionA. Supplementation of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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