Intercollegiate Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board
401 U.S. App. D.C. 407
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Intercollegiate Broadcasting, Inc. appeals the CRJs' final webcasting royalty determination for 2011–2015.
- CRJs, three judges appointed by the Librarian of Congress, set terms and rates under 17 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.
- SoundExchange and College Broadcasting settled most participants; CRJs adopted the SoundExchange–College Broadcasting terms, including a $500 annual per-station fee.
- Intercollegiate challenged both the merits and the structure under the Appointments Clause and § 803(d)(3) review provision.
- The court found an Appointments Clause defect due to removal restrictions on the CRJs and severed those restrictions to cure the defect.
- Because the constitutional problem existed at decision time, the court vacated and remanded the CRJ determination and did not reach merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the CRJs principal officers under the Appointments Clause? | Intercollegiate: yes, CRJs are principal officers due to significant authority. | Government: no, CRJs are inferior officers with supervisory constraints. | CRJs are principal officers; unconstitutional lack of removal power. |
| Can severing the Librarian's removal power cure the Appointments Clause defect? | Severance preserves the regime; removes constitutional defect. | Severance would disrupt ongoing administration; complexities persist. | Yes; severing removal restrictions cures the defect and preserves structure. |
| Is the Librarian of Congress a valid Head of Department for appointment purposes? | Keeffe-type reasoning suggests Librarian not a Head of Department. | Library qualifies as a Head of Department; constitutional for appointment power. | Librarian is a Head of Department; permissible to appoint CRJs. |
| Do we address merits of the rate terms given the constitutional problem? | Court should review merits after constitutional cure. | Remand straightforwardly addresses constitutional issue; merits not reached. | Remand vacates the determination; merits not addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 130 S. Ct. 3138 (2010) (removal-for-cause restraint severable to cure Appointments Clause defects)
- Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) (independent counsel inferior officer with limited duties and removability concerns)
- Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997) (significant authority as officer status; supervision factor for inferior vs principal)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (definition of officer versus nonofficer; significance of authority threshold)
- Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) (appointment and structures involving officers in the executive branch)