Writers Guild of America v. American Broadcasting

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
609 F.2d 355 (1979)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, a federal court should defer to an administrative agency for an initial determination of issues that are within the agency's special competence and involve the core of a complex regulatory scheme, even when those issues involve constitutional and statutory claims against the agency itself.

Facts:

In mid-1974, congressional committees directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to report on actions taken to protect children from violence and obscenity on television.
In response, FCC Chairman Richard Wiley chose not to pursue formal rulemaking but instead initiated a campaign of informal pressure, or 'jawboning,' to encourage industry self-regulation.
Between October 1974 and April 1975, Chairman Wiley held private meetings with executives from the major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB).
In these meetings and in public speeches, Wiley urged the industry to adopt policies like a 'family viewing hour' and warned that if self-regulation failed, formal government action might be necessary.
Following Wiley's campaign, CBS proposed an amendment to the NAB Television Code creating a 'family viewing hour' in the first hour of primetime.
ABC and NBC quickly announced similar policies.
In April 1975, the NAB, after expedited consideration urged by Wiley, formally adopted the 'family viewing policy' as an amendment to its Television Code.

Procedural Posture:

Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. and Tandem Productions, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed suit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), its commissioners, and the major television networks (defendants).
The actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages, alleging the 'family viewing policy' was a product of unconstitutional government pressure in violation of the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Following a trial, the district court found for the plaintiffs, holding that FCC pressure caused the adoption of the policy, which violated the First Amendment and the APA.
All parties (defendants-appellants and plaintiffs-appellees) appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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 doctrine of primary jurisdiction require a federal district court to defer to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for an initial determination of claims that the FCC improperly used informal pressure to cause broadcasters to adopt the 'family viewing policy'?

Opinions:

Majority - Sneed, Circuit Judge

Yes. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires deferral to the FCC for an initial determination of the claims. The issues raised, concerning the scope of the FCC's power and its use of informal regulatory techniques like 'jawboning,' strike at the core of the 'delicately balanced system of broadcast regulation' and are matters over which the FCC has special competence. The court's ultimate resolution of the constitutional and statutory claims will be aided by the FCC's thorough consideration of them first. While a court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions, the development of standards governing the agency's use of informal methods should be addressed in the first instance by those familiar with the industry's customs and practices. The district court erred by thrusting itself into this complex regulatory area without first allowing the expert agency to apply its expertise.

Analysis:

This decision significantly reinforces the authority of administrative agencies by affirming the applicability of the primary jurisdiction doctrine even when an agency's own conduct is challenged on constitutional grounds. It establishes that courts should be hesitant to intervene in complex regulatory schemes, like broadcast media, before the expert agency has had an opportunity to address the issue. The ruling provides agencies a procedural shield, requiring plaintiffs to first seek resolution within the agency, thereby allowing the agency to shape the factual record and legal arguments before judicial review. This impacts litigation strategy against agencies, often forcing challengers into the administrative forum before they can get to a federal court.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Writers Guild of America v. American Broadcasting (1979)

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