Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

556 U.S. 502, 129 S.Ct. 1800, 173 L.Ed.2d 738 (2009)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

United States Supreme Court

556 U.S. 502, 129 S.Ct. 1800, 173 L.Ed.2d 738 (2009)

Play video

Facts

Congress granted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (plaintiff) power to revoke a television broadcaster's license for violating FCC broadcast regulations. One regulation prohibited indecent broadcasts, defined as including the use of offensive terms relating to bodily functions. The FCC's original enforcement policy distinguished between the repetitive, literal use of an offensive term to describe a bodily function and the spontaneous, nonliteral use of the term to convey emotion. The policy treated the nonliteral use more leniently. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (Fox) (defendant), broadcast several programs containing the spontaneous, nonliteral use of offensive terms. Soon after, the FCC abandoned its original enforcement policy in favor of a new policy that enabled it to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Fox. The FCC's explanation for its policy change cited (1) the constraints the original policy placed on FCC enforcement efforts; (2) recent court cases that implicitly removed any legal basis for distinguishing literal from nonliteral uses of offensive terms; and (3) new "bleeping" technology that enabled broadcasters to censor the offensive term. The FCC applied the new policy to find that Fox had violated the indecency regulation. Fox appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court held that the FCC failed to show why its new enforcement policy was preferable to the original policy and reversed the FCC's ruling. The FCC appealed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)

Concurrence (Kennedy, J.)

Concurrence (Thomas, J.)

Dissent (Breyer, J.)

Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership