Sangamon Valley Television Corp. v. United States

Decision Date08 May 1959
Docket NumberNo. 13992.,13992.
PartiesSANGAMON VALLEY TELEVISION CORPORATION, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES of America and Federal Communications Commission, Respondents American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., WMAY-TV, Inc., Signal Hill Telecasting Corporation, and Plains Television Corporation, Intervenors.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. D. M. Patrick, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Lester Cohen and Stanley S. Harris, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioner.

Mr. Robert A. Bicks, First Assistant, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Henry Geller, Attorney, Department of Justice, was on the brief, for respondent United States of America. Mr. Daniel M. Friedman, Attorney, Department of Justice, also entered an appearance for respondent United States of America.

Mr. Max D. Paglin, Assistant General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, for respondent Federal Communications Commission. Messrs. John L. FitzGerald, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, and Edward W. Hautanen, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, were on the brief for respondent Federal Communications Commission.

Mr. Marcus Cohn, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Paul Dobin, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for intervenor WMAY-TV, Inc. Mr. Stanley S. Neustadt, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for intervenor WMAY-TV, Inc.

Mr. Monroe Oppenheimer, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Abraham J. Harris and James H. Heller, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for intervenor Signal Hill Telecasting Corporation.

Messrs. James A. McKenna, Jr., and Vernon L. Wilkinson, Washington, D. C., were on the briefs for intervenors American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., and Plains Television Corporation.

Before EDGERTON, FAHY, and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.

When this case was here before, we said only:

"Petitioner seeks review of a rule-making decision of the Federal Communications Commission resulting in amendment of the Table of Television Channel Assignment. The amendment assigned VHF Channel 2, Springfield, Illinois, to St. Louis, Missouri, and Terre Haute, Indiana, accompanied with the assignment of UHF Channels 26 and 36 to Springfield.
"Petitioner, applicant for Channel 2 at Springfield, attacks the decision as illegal because inconsistent with Section 307(b) of the Communications Act.1
"We are unable to sustain this attack. Upon the basis of a full hearing the Commission weighed the various factors involved and reached a reasoned decision within its competence. We find nothing arbitrary, capricious or otherwise illegal in the decision, and it accordingly is Affirmed."2

Sangamon Valley Television Corporation petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. The government's brief in opposition concluded:

"We believe it proper, however, to call the Court\'s attention to certain testimony given before the Subcommittee of Legislative Oversight of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on May 22, 26, and 28, 1958, and June 9, 10, and 11, 1958, subsequent to the decision by the court of appeals affirming the Commission\'s order. The testimony indicates that after the rule-making proceeding here had been initiated by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and while it was under consideration by the Commission, representatives of the St. Louis operator of a UHF station who was interested in having a new VHF channel assigned to St. Louis, and representatives of the petitioner and the other applicant for VHF Channel 2 in Springfield, who were interested in retaining that channel in Springfield, made ex parte presentations with respect to merits of the rule-making proceeding to various members of the Commission.
"These matters were not presented to the court below and are not presented by the petition. For this reason, the respondents do not and would not regard denial of certiorari as foreclosing appropriate consideration thereof by the court of appeals." (pp. 7-8)

In granting Sangamon's petition the Supreme Court said:

"In view of the representations in the Solicitor General\'s brief on pages 7 and 8, concerning testimony given before the Subcommittee of Legislative Oversight of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce subsequent to the decision by the Court of Appeals in this case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for such action as it may deem appropriate." 358 U.S. 49-50, 79 S.Ct. 94, 3 L.Ed.2d 47.

While the proceeding involved here was pending before the Commission it gave notice to the parties, on October 12, 1956, that

"Any interested person who is of the view that the proposals herein should not be adopted, or should not be adopted in the form set forth herein, may file with the Commission on or before November 15, 1956, written data, views, or arguments setting forth his comments. Comments in support of the proposals may also be filed on or before the same date. Comments or briefs in reply to such original comments as may be submitted should be filed within 15 days from the last day for filing said original comments or briefs. No additional comments may be filed unless (1) specifically requested by the Commission or (2) good cause for filing such additional comments is established. The Commission will consider all such additional comments submitted before taking further action in this matter, and if any comments appear to warrant the holding of a hearing, oral argument, or demonstration, notice of the time and place of such hearing, oral argument or demonstration will be given." (Emphasis added.)

Several parties filed comments. The Commission extended the time for filing reply comments until December 28, 1956. The parties, including intervenor Signal Hill Telecasting Corporation, filed timely reply comments.

On March 1, 1957, the Commission issued the order under review. It shifted VHF Channel 2 from Springfield to St. Louis, shifted UHF Channels 26 and 36 to Springfield, and modified Signal Hill's outstanding authorization for Channel 36 in St. Louis to permit temporary operation on Channel 2 subject to certain conditions.

Harry Tenenbaum, president of intervenor Signal Hill, admitted to the Legislative Oversight Subcommittee that while the proceeding before the Commission was pending he spoke to its members individually "in privacy in their offices, not while they were sitting in a body as the Commission", of his desire to have Channel 2; "knowing, of course, or expecting, that if Channel 2 went to St. Louis he would have good opportunity to get it." He was "in all the Commissioners' offices" and went "from Commissioner to Commissioner". He "probably discussed" with every Commissioner his desire to have Channel 2. He testified that he had every Commissioner at one time or another as his luncheon guest, and that he gave turkeys to every Commissioner in 1955 and in 1956.

Finally, on February 20, 1957, seven weeks after the cut-off date, as extended, for filing reply comments and ten days before the Commission decided the case, Tenenbaum sent each Commissioner a letter in which he contended and tried to prove that "Channel 2, based in St. Louis, would reach 166,700 more homes in the state of Illinois than if it were based in Springfield, Illinois."3 These letters did not go into the public record. The parties who were opposing the transfer of Channel 2 from Springfield to St. Louis could not question Tenenbaum's contention, since they did not know he was making it. Its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
67 cases
  • City of Angels Broadcasting, Inc. v. F.C.C.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 28 Septiembre 1984
    ...court for further proceedings. See SVTC v. United States, 358 U.S. 49, 79 S.Ct. 94, 3 L.Ed.2d 47 (1958) (per curiam), on remand, 269 F.2d 221 (D.C.Cir.1959). In our 1961 decision, we decided that the same "basic fairness" that prohibits ex parte contacts required, given all the circumstance......
  • Shidaker v. Carlin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 29 Enero 1986
    ...752 (1977); Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 540-46, 79 S.Ct. 968, 973-76, 3 L.Ed.d 1012 (1959); Sangamon Valley Television v. United States, 269 F.2d 221, 224 (D.C.Cir.1959). Although we view this as a close case, we cannot say that the letter from Santoro to Koenigs was such a serious d......
  • Doe v. Hampton
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 3 Noviembre 1977
    ...proceeding are prohibited as fundamentally at variance with our conceptions of due process. See Sangamon Valley Television Corp. v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 30, 269 F.2d 221 (1959); Administrative Procedure Act § 5(c), 5 U.S.C. § 554(d) (1970). In short, whatever else it may have bee......
  • Sierra Club v. Costle
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 1 Junio 1981
    ...public comment," and it is "of central relevance to the outcome of the rule" (emphasis supplied)).499 Sangamon Valley Television Corp. v. United States, 269 F.2d 221, 224 (D.C.Cir.1959) (FCC channel assignment proceeding involved claims of this sort, and "basic fairness requires such procee......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 12 PRACTICE BEFORE STATE MINING AGENCIES
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Natural Resources Administrative Law and Procedure (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...Guide for New Mexico Public Officials and Citizens, 1-2 (1980). [6] See, e.g., Sangamon Valley Television Corp. v. United States, 269 F.2d 221, 224 (D.C. Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 915 (1964) (interested parties could not challenge the accuracy of information exchanged during ex par......
  • CHAPTER 7 CONTROL OF INFORMAL AGENCY RULEMAKING BY CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Natural Resources Administrative Law and Procedure (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...564 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir. 1977). [44] 657 F.2d 298 (1981). [45] Id. at 400-02. [46] See Sangamon Valley Television Corp. v. United States, 269 F.2d 221, 224 (D.C. Cir. 1959). [47] 657 F.2d at 407-08. [48] 272 U.S. 52 (1926). [49] 295 U.S. 602 (1935). [50] "The ordinary duties of officers pres......

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