Arkansas Educational Television Commission. v. Forbes
523 U.S. 666 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state-owned public broadcaster's decision to exclude a political candidate from a debate is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral exercise of journalistic discretion consistent with the First Amendment, as such a debate is a nonpublic forum.
Facts:
- The Arkansas Educational Television Commission (AETC), a state agency, planned a series of debates for the 1992 congressional elections.
- AETC staff decided to limit participation to major party candidates and any other candidate who demonstrated strong popular support.
- AETC invited the Democratic and Republican candidates for Arkansas' Third Congressional District to participate in a debate.
- Ralph Forbes, a perennial candidate, qualified to appear on the ballot for that seat as an independent after collecting the required 2,000 signatures.
- Forbes wrote to AETC requesting to be included in the debate.
- AETC's Executive Director denied Forbes' request, citing a "bona fide journalistic judgement" that viewers would be best served by limiting the debate to the candidates already invited.
- AETC staff later testified that Forbes was excluded because he had no campaign organization, had not generated appreciable voter support, and was not considered a serious candidate by the media.
Procedural Posture:
- Ralph Forbes sued AETC in the U.S. District Court, alleging First Amendment violations and seeking injunctive relief and damages.
- The District Court denied Forbes' request for a preliminary injunction to be included in the debate.
- The District Court later dismissed Forbes' lawsuit for failure to state a claim.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the dismissal of the First Amendment claim, holding Forbes had a qualified right of access, and remanded the case.
- On remand, a jury trial was held in the District Court. The jury found AETC's decision was not based on Forbes' views, and the court entered a judgment for AETC.
- Forbes appealed again, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the debate was a public forum to which all ballot-qualified candidates had a right of access and that AETC's reason for exclusion was not compelling.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted AETC's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state-owned public television broadcaster violate the First Amendment by exercising its journalistic discretion to exclude a political candidate with minimal public support from a televised candidate debate?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. A state-owned public broadcaster does not violate the First Amendment by excluding a candidate from a debate based on a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral exercise of journalistic discretion. While most public television programming is not subject to forum analysis, candidate debates are a narrow exception due to their nature as a forum for political speech. The AETC debate was a nonpublic forum, not a designated public forum, because AETC engaged in 'selective access' by making individual, candidate-by-candidate judgments rather than granting 'general access' to a class of speakers. In a nonpublic forum, restrictions on speech are permissible so long as they are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. AETC's decision to exclude Forbes was reasonable because it was based on his objective lack of popular support and political viability. The decision was also viewpoint-neutral, as confirmed by a jury finding that it was not based on opposition to his views.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The exclusion of Forbes violated well-settled constitutional principles. The majority understates the importance of the fact that AETC is a state actor, whose actions are subject to stricter First Amendment scrutiny than those of a private broadcaster to prevent government censorship. The dispositive issue is not the forum classification but AETC's use of standardless, ad hoc criteria to determine participation. By exercising unfettered discretion based on subjective judgments of 'political viability,' AETC engaged in a practice analogous to an unconstitutional prior restraint, which requires 'narrow, objective, and definite standards.' A state-owned entity, when it decides to host a political debate, must define the forum's boundaries with specificity and use pre-established, objective criteria to govern access, which AETC failed to do.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of forum doctrine to state-sponsored candidate debates, classifying them as nonpublic fora. By doing so, the Court grants public broadcasters significant journalistic discretion, shielding them from First Amendment claims so long as their decisions are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. This ruling prevents the potential chaos of forcing broadcasters to include every ballot-qualified candidate, which could lead to fewer debates being held. However, it also raises concerns, articulated by the dissent, about giving state actors subjective, standardless power to influence the electoral process by determining who is a 'viable' candidate.
Unlock the full brief for Arkansas Educational Television Commission. v. Forbes