Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commn.

Supreme Court of the United States
129 L. Ed. 2d 497, 114 S. Ct. 2445 (1994)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Content-neutral regulations that require cable television systems to carry local broadcast stations are subject to an intermediate level of First Amendment scrutiny, not strict scrutiny.

Facts:

Cable television systems evolved from enhancing broadcast signals to becoming a dominant, independent source of video programming, often holding a local monopoly.
Unlike broadcasters who transmit signals over the air for free, cable operators transmit programming through a physical network of cables, giving them 'bottleneck' or 'gatekeeper' control over the programming subscribers receive.
Congress conducted three years of hearings and found that cable operators have the economic power and incentive to disadvantage competing local broadcast stations, potentially jeopardizing their financial viability.
Congress found that over 60% of American households with televisions subscribed to cable and that many of these subscribers could not receive over-the-air broadcast signals.
In 1992, Congress enacted the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, which included 'must-carry' provisions in Sections 4 and 5.
These provisions require cable systems with more than 12 channels to set aside up to one-third of their channel capacity for local commercial and noncommercial educational broadcast stations.

Procedural Posture:

Numerous cable operators and programmers, including Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., filed five consolidated lawsuits against the United States and the FCC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The plaintiffs alleged that the 'must-carry' provisions of the 1992 Cable Act violated the First Amendment.
A special three-judge District Court was convened to hear the case.
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government, upholding the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions under an intermediate scrutiny standard.
One judge on the panel dissented, arguing the provisions were content-based and failed strict scrutiny.
The plaintiffs (appellants) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do the 'must-carry' provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, which require cable operators to dedicate a portion of their channels to local broadcast stations, violate the First Amendment free speech rights of cable operators and programmers?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Kennedy

Not yet determined. The 'must-carry' provisions are content-neutral and subject to intermediate First Amendment scrutiny, but the case is remanded for further factual development to determine if the provisions are narrowly tailored enough to survive this scrutiny. The regulations are content-neutral because they do not distinguish favored from disfavored speech based on ideas or views; instead, they distinguish between speakers based on their mode of transmission (broadcast vs. cable) to achieve a structural goal. The government's asserted interests in preserving free over-the-air television, promoting a multiplicity of information sources, and ensuring fair competition are important and unrelated to the suppression of speech. However, for a regulation to survive intermediate scrutiny, the government must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that the regulation will alleviate these harms in a direct and material way. The factual record is insufficient to determine whether the economic health of local broadcasting is genuinely in jeopardy and whether the must-carry rules are narrowly tailored to address that threat without burdening substantially more speech than necessary. Therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate, and the case is remanded for the District Court to resolve these disputed issues of material fact.

Concurring - Justice Blackmun

Agrees with the majority's analysis and the need to remand. While substantial deference is owed to the predictive judgments of Congress, the factual record submitted to the District Court was not adequate to support summary judgment in favor of the government, especially given the First Amendment values at stake.

Concurring - Justice Stevens

Agrees that intermediate scrutiny is the correct standard and that the must-carry provisions are content-neutral. However, he would have affirmed the District Court’s decision, finding that the congressional findings were sufficient on their face to justify the must-carry provisions. He concurs in the judgment to remand only to ensure a majority disposition for the case.

Dissenting - Justice O’Connor

Yes. The must-carry provisions violate the First Amendment because they are a content-based regulation that cannot survive strict scrutiny. The law is content-based because Congress’s own stated justifications for preferring broadcasters—promoting localism, educational programming, and news—are based on the subject matter of their speech. The government's interest in promoting this content is not compelling, and the law is not narrowly tailored. Even if the law were considered content-neutral, it is unconstitutionally overbroad because it burdens the speech of cable operators and programmers in situations where there is no threat of anticompetitive harm or risk to a broadcaster's survival.

Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg

Yes. The must-carry rules reflect an unwarranted content-based preference for broadcasters. The government's asserted justification—that over-the-air television is at risk—is based on a hypothetical threat that has not materialized in reality. The law is not justified by the facts and should be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment.

Analysis:

This case established the constitutional standard of review for regulations of the cable television industry, rejecting both the highly deferential standard applied to broadcasting and the strict scrutiny urged by cable operators. By selecting intermediate scrutiny, the Court recognized cable's unique role as a 'bottleneck' controller of programming while affirming that cable operators are speakers with significant First Amendment rights. The decision's requirement that Congress provide substantial evidence of a 'real, not merely conjectural' harm before regulating has had a lasting impact, requiring a robust factual basis for speech-related economic regulations in telecommunications. This framework has influenced subsequent legal analysis of regulations affecting other media, including the internet.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commn. (1994)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature