Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission

Supreme Court of the United States · 1969 · Civil Procedure

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentAdministrative LawBroadcast RegulationFairness Doctrinefairness doctrinepersonal attack rulepolitical editorializing rule

Facts

Red Lion Broadcasting operated radio station WGCB in Pennsylvania. WGCB aired a 15-minute broadcast by Reverend Billy James Hargis attacking Fred J. Cook's honesty, affiliations, and writings while discussing a controversial public issue, and Cook demanded free reply time. The station refused, and the FCC ruled that the broadcast was a personal attack requiring the station to provide Cook a tape, transcript or summary, and reply time under the fairness doctrine. Separately, the FCC had adopted 1967 regulations codifying personal attack and political editorial reply obligations, which were challenged by broadcasters.

Issue

Whether the FCC had statutory authority under the Communications Act to apply and codify the fairness doctrine through personal attack and political editorializing rules, and whether those requirements violate the First Amendment rights of broadcasters. The case also presented whether the rules were impermissibly vague on their face.

Rule

Because broadcast frequencies are scarce and licensed in the public interest, Congress and the FCC may require broadcasters to present discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance and to provide reasonable reply opportunities for personal attacks and political editorials. In broadcasting, it is the right of viewers and listeners, not the right of broadcasters, that is paramount, and the First Amendment does not confer on a licensee an unconditional right to monopolize a frequency or exclude opposing speakers.

🔒

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.

Prairie State Radio, a licensed AM station in Des Moines, airs a weekly program on water policy and refuses requests from opposing speakers because the owner says the station's frequency is private expressive property. The owner argues that forcing access for contrary views would violate the station's First Amendment right to control all content on its channel.

If the FCC requires the station to provide reasonable access for conflicting views on issues of public importance, which is the best constitutional analysis?

Explanation. The majority held that because broadcast frequencies are scarce and allocated by government licensing, a licensee has no First Amendment right to monopolize a frequency or exclude others categorically. In broadcasting, the public's right to receive diverse views is paramount over the broadcaster's asserted right to exclusive control. The FCC may therefore impose reasonable access obligations tied to discussion of public issues. (Derived from Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969).)