Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechCable Television Regulationmust-carrycontent-neutralintermediate scrutinyO'Brien test

Facts

Sections 4 and 5 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 require cable systems to devote some channel capacity to local broadcast stations. In the prior appeal, the Court held these must-carry provisions were content-neutral and therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny, but remanded because the factual record was insufficient on justification and tailoring. On remand, the record was expanded with extensive congressional materials, expert submissions, testimony, and industry documents. Congress had acted out of concern that cable operators' market power, concentration, and vertical integration would lead them to drop or disadvantage local broadcasters, threatening free over-the-air television and the multiplicity of information sources available to noncable households.

Issue

Whether the expanded record supported Congress' predictive judgment that the Cable Act's must-carry provisions further important governmental interests, and whether the provisions burden substantially more speech than necessary under the First Amendment. More specifically, the question was whether these content-neutral carriage requirements satisfy intermediate scrutiny.

Rule

A content-neutral regulation of speech is valid under the First Amendment if it advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests. In reviewing such legislation, courts must accord substantial deference to Congress' predictive judgments and ask whether Congress drew reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.

🔒

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 enacts a statute requiring dominant digital television distributors to reserve 8% of their on-screen guide slots for qualified local free over-the-air stations in markets such as Phoenix and Cleveland. The legislative record shows the distributors control access to most households using the service, the rule applies without regard to message or viewpoint, and Congress sought to preserve free local broadcasting and multiple information sources for households that do not subscribe to premium packages.

If challenged under the First Amendment, which is the strongest argument for upholding the statute?

Explanation. The majority applied intermediate scrutiny to content-neutral carriage rules. The regulation is valid if it advances important governmental interests unrelated to suppression of speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary. Congress need not prove total industry collapse, prove anticompetitive intent in every case, or choose the least speech-restrictive alternative.