Alvin Lou Media, Inc. v. FCC
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
571 F.3d 1 (2009)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (defendant) was charged with distributing broadcast licenses in a fair and equitable way. Because only one license could be granted for each frequency to avoid radio interference, the FCC would hold a competitive-bidding process for applications competing for the same frequency. All applicants were required to submit a preliminary application certifying they were qualified to hold a license. If multiple applicants were qualified for the license, the FCC would hold an auction. The FCC would then conduct a full technical review to ensure the winner bidder qualified for the license. Alvin Lou Media, Inc. (Alvin Lou) (plaintiff) and Powell Meredith Communications Company (Powell) applied for the same radio frequency to operate in the Las Vegas area. The FCC prepared to hold an auction, which Alvin Lou objected to. Alvin Lou argued that Powell’s application was technically deficient and should be dismissed before the auction so Alvin Lou would not have to bid against an invalid applicant. Alvin Lou requested that the FCC conduct a technical review of Powell’s application before the auction. The FCC denied Alvin Lou’s petition because of the FCC policy to not conduct technical reviews until after an auction. Alvin Lou declined to participate in the auction. Powell won the auction, and Alvin Lou petitioned the FCC again. The FCC denied Alvin Lou’s petition, and Alvin Lou appealed. The FCC moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Alvin Lou lacked standing.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rogers, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 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.