FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project
592 U.S. 414
SCOTUS
2021

Background

  • The FCC, under the Communications Act and Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, must review its broadcast ownership rules every four years and repeal/modify any rules no longer in the public interest.
  • Three longstanding ownership rules at issue: Newspaper/Broadcast Cross‑Ownership Rule, Radio/Television Cross‑Ownership Rule, and Local Television Ownership Rule.
  • In 2017 the FCC (on reconsideration) concluded market changes (cable/Internet) made those rules unnecessary for competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity, and it repealed two rules and modified the third.
  • The FCC also concluded, based on the existing (sparse) record and absence of countervailing evidence, that the changes were not likely to harm minority or female ownership.
  • Prometheus petitioned under the APA, arguing the FCC’s predictive judgment about minority/female ownership was arbitrary and capricious; the Third Circuit vacated the order for insufficient record support.
  • The Supreme Court reversed, holding the FCC reasonably considered the record, acted within the zone of reasonableness under the APA, and was not required to conduct its own empirical studies or to reach a different conclusion about minority/female ownership on this record.

Issues

Issue Prometheus' Argument FCC/Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the FCC’s repeal/modification was arbitrary and capricious for failing adequately to assess likely effects on minority and female ownership FCC relied on flawed/incomplete data and ignored superior studies showing past relaxations reduced minority/female ownership FCC reasonably relied on available record, acknowledged data gaps, sought but received no additional empirical submissions, and interpreted existing studies differently Rejected Prometheus; FCC’s predictive judgment was reasonable and adequately explained under the APA
Whether the FCC had an obligation to conduct or commission its own empirical/statistical studies before changing the rules FCC should have produced or commissioned studies demonstrating no harm The APA and the Telecommunications Act do not require agencies to conduct their own studies; FCC repeatedly solicited evidence and none was provided Held for FCC; no statutory or APA duty to conduct agency-led empirical studies
Whether consideration of minority/female ownership is required by §202(h) or prior precedent so the FCC must treat ownership diversity as a freestanding goal §202(h) and prior FCC practice require in‑depth consideration of minority/female ownership impacts FCC viewed minority/female ownership as relevant only insofar as it relates to viewpoint diversity and competition; §202(h) does not mandate separate ownership‑diversity requirement Court did not resolve statutory question broadly but accepted FCC’s approach here; Justice Thomas concurred that §202(h) does not require considering ownership diversity
Whether courts may impose extra (nonstatutory) procedural requirements on agencies (as Third Circuit did) Third Circuit required new empirical research or in‑depth theoretical analysis on remand FCC argued the court exceeded its role by imposing such requirements and that its analysis met the arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard Supreme Court reversed Third Circuit for improperly rejecting FCC’s reasoned decision; remand requirement was unwarranted

Key Cases Cited

  • FCC v. National Citizens Comm. for Broadcasting, 436 U.S. 775 (1978) (upholding FCC authority to adopt ownership rules to promote competition and diversity)
  • FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (agencies must provide reasonable explanation for policy changes; review is deferential)
  • Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard for agency rulemaking)
  • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978) (courts may not impose extra procedural requirements on agencies beyond statute and APA)
  • Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2004) (earlier Third Circuit decision directing consideration of minority ownership effects)
  • Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 652 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2011) (Third Circuit reiterating concerns about minority/female ownership analysis)
  • Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 824 F.3d 33 (3d Cir. 2016) (Third Circuit further review of FCC ownership rules)
  • Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990) (upheld race‑conscious FCC policies as substantially related to viewpoint diversity; later discussed in opinion)
  • Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (requires strict scrutiny for racial classifications)
  • FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild, 450 U.S. 582 (1981) (referenced for deferential review of FCC decisions)
  • Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 575 U.S. 92 (2015) (courts cannot impose judge‑made procedural requirements on agencies)
Read the full case