Prometheus Radio Project v. Federal Communications Commission

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2016 · Administrative Law

824 F.3d 33 (2016)

Updated July 19, 2026

Administrative LawFCCAPA706(1)unreasonable delayagency inactionagency actionarbitrary and capricious

Facts

The FCC had long used a revenue-based 'eligible entity' definition in diversity initiatives aimed at promoting minority and female broadcast ownership, but the Third Circuit previously found that definition arbitrary and capricious in Prometheus II and directed the Commission to consider alternative definitions during the 2010 Quadrennial Review. Years later, the FCC still had not made a final determination on a new definition and had not completed the 2010 or 2014 Quadrennial Reviews required by § 202(h). In 2014, while those review cycles remained unfinished, the FCC adopted a rule attributing same-market television joint sales agreements covering more than 15 percent of a station’s weekly advertising time to station ownership caps. Petitioners challenged the delay and the JSA rule.

Issue

Whether the FCC unreasonably delayed final action on the eligible entity definition and the completion of its quadrennial review obligations under APA § 706(1), and whether the FCC could adopt a television JSA attribution rule expanding the reach of ownership restrictions without first completing a § 202(h) review showing the underlying ownership rules remained in the public interest.

Rule

Under APA § 706(1), courts may compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed, with reasonableness assessed by considering the length of delay, the statutory context, the consequences of delay, and any administrative justifications. Under § 202(h), whenever the FCC retains, repeals, or modifies a broadcast ownership rule, including by making it more stringent through attribution, it must determine through a reasoned analysis that the rule is in the public interest; the Commission cannot expand attribution for an ownership rule subject to § 202(h) unless it has, within the previous four years, reviewed that rule and determined it is in the public interest.

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.

Congress requires the River Spectrum Commission to revise a diversity-eligibility standard used for licensing preferences. After a court remand instructing the agency to consider alternative definitions, the agency spends eleven years issuing notices and collecting comments but never adopts or rejects any final definition, while programs tied to the definition remain frozen in Phoenix and Tucson.

If affected advocacy groups seek relief under APA § 706(1), which is the strongest argument for compelling agency action?

Explanation. Under APA § 706(1), the court's polestar is reasonableness, assessed by considering the length of delay, the statutory context, the consequences of delay, and administrative justifications. The majority held that a decade-plus delay on a diversity-related definition was unreasonable where the statute treated minority and female ownership as important, the delay prevented related initiatives from taking effect, and data-collection problems did not excuse continued inaction. The proper remedy can be an order to act promptly, not automatic mass vacatur.