Farmers Educational & Cooperative Union v. WDAY, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1959 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsFederal Communications ActPreemptionBroadcast regulationLibel47 U.S.C. § 315no power of censorshipcandidate broadcasts

Facts

WDAY allowed legally qualified senatorial candidates to use its radio and television facilities during the 1956 North Dakota United States Senate race. As a reply to earlier broadcasts by two other candidates, WDAY permitted candidate A. C. Townley to deliver an uncensored speech because it believed § 315 required it to do so. In that speech, Townley accused his opponents and the petitioner, Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America, of conspiring to establish a Communist farmers union in North Dakota. Farmers Union then brought a libel action against both Townley and WDAY.

Issue

Does § 315 of the Federal Communications Act bar a broadcasting station from deleting defamatory statements in a legally qualified candidate's speech, and if so, does § 315 implicitly immunize the station from libel liability for broadcasting those statements?

Rule

Under § 315, when a licensee permits a legally qualified candidate to use its station, the licensee has no power of censorship over the candidate's material broadcast under that section. Because the statute compels carriage without censorship, it implicitly grants the licensee immunity from libel liability for defamatory statements contained in such candidate broadcasts; contrary state libel law cannot be applied to impose liability for the conduct the federal statute requires.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A television station in Columbus, Ohio, sold campaign airtime to Maya Rowan, a legally qualified candidate for governor. To comply with federal equal-opportunities requirements, the station then gave equal time to her opponent, Daniel Perez, whose uncensored broadcast accused a local nonprofit, Great Lakes Housing Network, of laundering money for drug traffickers. The nonprofit sued the station for libel under Ohio law.

Is the station most likely liable?

Explanation. The majority held that § 315 denies a licensee power to censor material broadcast by a legally qualified candidate under that section, and that this compulsion carries an implied federal immunity from libel liability. Applying contrary state libel law would obstruct Congress's objective of full and unrestricted political discussion by candidates.