United States et al. v. Southwestern Cable Co. et al.
392 U.S. 157 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has the authority to regulate community antenna television (CATV) systems because such regulation is reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of its statutory responsibilities for the regulation of television broadcasting.
Facts:
- Midwest Television, Inc. (Midwest) operated a television broadcast station in San Diego, California.
- Respondents, including Southwestern Cable Co., operated community antenna television (CATV) systems in the San Diego area.
- These CATV systems captured the broadcast signals of television stations located in Los Angeles.
- The CATV systems then amplified these Los Angeles signals and retransmitted them via cable to their paying subscribers in the San Diego market.
- Midwest asserted that this importation of 'distant signals' fragmented the local San Diego audience, which would reduce the advertising revenues of local stations and ultimately harm local broadcast service.
- CATV systems did not typically produce their own programming or compensate broadcasters for the use of the programming they retransmitted.
Procedural Posture:
- Midwest Television, Inc. filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeking relief against respondent CATV systems.
- The FCC, without a full evidentiary hearing, issued an order restricting the expansion of the respondents' CATV service, pending a hearing on the merits.
- The respondents petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for review of the FCC's order.
- The Court of Appeals held that the FCC lacked authority under the Communications Act to regulate CATV systems and issue the prohibitory order.
- The United States, on behalf of the FCC, petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 the Communications Act of 1934 grant the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to regulate community antenna television (CATV) systems and to issue orders restricting their activities?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes. The Communications Act of 1934 grants the FCC the authority to regulate CATV systems because such authority is reasonably ancillary to the Commission's responsibilities for regulating broadcasting. The Act confers upon the FCC broad regulatory power over 'all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio,' which plainly encompasses CATV systems. The Commission reasonably concluded that the 'unregulated explosive growth of CATV' jeopardized the public interest by threatening the economic foundation of local broadcast television, which the FCC is statutorily obligated to protect and foster. This authority is not plenary but is restricted to that which is 'reasonably ancillary' to its broadcasting responsibilities. Furthermore, the FCC's order to temporarily halt the expansion of CATV service pending a hearing was a valid exercise of its power to issue such orders 'as may be necessary in the execution of its functions' to preserve the status quo.
Concurring - Mr. Justice White
Yes. The FCC has the authority to regulate CATV systems to prevent interference with its licensed broadcasting scheme. The basis for jurisdiction is not simply the general grant of authority in § 152(a), but its use in implementing specific powers granted elsewhere in the Act. Under §§ 301 and 303, the FCC has ample power to prevent a licensed broadcaster in one market from interfering with broadcasting in another. Therefore, the Commission should also have the power to prevent a third party, like a CATV system, from causing the same disruption to the Commission's authorized broadcasting plan for a community.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the doctrine of 'ancillary jurisdiction,' which significantly expanded the FCC's regulatory power over new technologies not explicitly named in the Communications Act of 1934. By affirming that the agency could regulate activities 'reasonably ancillary' to its core statutory mission, the Court provided the FCC with the flexibility to adapt to a dynamic and evolving communications landscape. This ruling became the legal foundation for decades of FCC regulation of the cable television industry and set a crucial precedent for asserting authority over future technologies, such as satellite and internet services, that interact with or affect traditional broadcasting.
Unlock the full brief for United States et al. v. Southwestern Cable Co. et al.