Action for Children’s Television v. Federal Communications Commission
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
564 F.2d 458 (1977)
- Written by Kathryn Lohmeyer, JD
Facts
The public-interest group Action for Children’s Television (ACT) (plaintiff) proposed rules for improving children’s television that included imposing restrictions on commercials. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (defendant) published notice of ACT’s proposal, accepted written comments over a long period of time, and held informal panel discussions and oral arguments on the proposal. However, the FCC ultimately declined to adopt ACT’s proposal. Instead, the FCC adopted a final report and final rules that followed a proposal made by industry representative National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) permitting the television industry to use self-regulation to control the use of commercials in children’s programming. Historically, the FCC had permitted the industry to self-regulate in the area of programming. Also, publicly available records from prior NAB proposals reflected NAB’s advocacy for self-regulation within the industry. ACT petitioned for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, arguing that the FCC’s adoption of NAB’s self-regulation proposal represented an abuse of the informal-rulemaking process, because the proposal was negotiated in secret and was not subject to public comment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tamm, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.