FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project.
The Supreme Court reviewed the FCC's decision to repeal or modify three media ownership rules, which the FCC determined were no longer necessary for competition, localism, or viewpoint diversity. The Third Circuit had vacated the FCC's order, citing insufficient evidence on minority and female ownership impacts. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding the FCC's actions reasonable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project.
The Court held that the FCC's decision to repeal or modify the three ownership rules was not arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project
The case primarily concerns the FCC's authority and decision-making process under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The FCC's decision to repeal or modify the three ownership rules was not arbitrary and capricious for purposes of the APA.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project
The Court's role in reviewing the FCC's decision under the APA involves judicial review of agency action.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court cannot say that the agency's decision to repeal or modify the ownership rules fell outside the zone of reasonableness for purposes of the APA.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project that support the summary and concepts above.
The FCC's decision to repeal or modify the three ownership rules was not arbitrary and capricious for purposes of the APA.
The APA imposes no general obligation on agencies to conduct or commission their own empirical or statistical studies.
The Court cannot say that the agency's decision to repeal or modify the ownership rules fell outside the zone of reasonableness for purposes of the APA.
