Samantha Mauney

Case Brief 2
Qualls
1. Name of case: 395 US 367, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC
2. Statement of facts: The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) fairness
doctrine requires radio and television broadcasters to present a balanced and fair
discussion of public issues on the airwaves. The FCC conditioned its renewal of
broadcast licenses on compliance with its regulations. Red Lion Broadcasting
challenged the application of the fairness doctrine with respect to a particular
broadcast. The parties from separate cases sought to determine the legality of the
fairness doctrine and component rules promulgated by the Federal
Communications Commission, a petitioner in one case and the respondent in the
other. The first case applied the fairness doctrine to a particular broadcast, and the
second case arose as an action to review the FCC's amendment of the regulations.
In the first case, the FCC determined that a radio station had failed to meet its
obligation under the fairness doctrine. The FCC's position was upheld as
constitutional by a Court of Appeals. After the first case began, the FCC amended
the rules to make them more precise and enforceable. Another Court of Appeals
held that the amended rules were unconstitutional. The Court disagreed and
reversed the judgment in the second case and stated the judgment in the first. The
Court held that as enforced sharing of a scarce resource, the personal attack and
political editorial rules were vague from the equal-time provision of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.S. 315, which was a specific enactment of
Congress to which the challenged regulations were important complements.

3. Issue: Both parties sought review of the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine
and component rules by the Federal Communications Commission.
4. Rule: Fairness doctrine, first amendment
5. Application: The court held that the FCC's fairness doctrine regulations enhanced
rather than infringed the freedoms of speech protected under the first amendment.
6. Conclusion: The Court affirmed the judgment that upheld the application of the
fairness doctrine and reversed the judgment that held that the fairness doctrine and
its component rules were unconstitutional. The Court held that in view of the
scarcity of broadcast frequencies the Federal Communications Commission's role
in allocating those frequencies in "the public interest" was both authorized by
statute and constitutional.