Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

FCC v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS

Docket No.: 10-1293
Certiorari Granted: 06/27/11
Argued: January 10, 2012
Decided: 06/21/12

Topics:

Administrative Procedure, Due Process, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Hobbs Act, patent, privacy, stare decisis

PartyNames: Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al.
Petitioner: Federal Communications Commission, et al.
Respondent: Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Citation: 613 F.3d 317
Supreme Court Docket

Federal Communications Commission, et al.
v.
Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al.
Consideration Limited:

GRANTED LIMITED TO FOLLOWING QUESTION: "WHETHER THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CURRENT INDECENCY-ENFORCEMENT REGIME VIOLATES THE FIRST OR FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION." JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR TOOK NO PART.

Question Presented:

1. Whether the court of appeals erred in invalidating a finding by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that a broadcast including expletives was indecent within the meaning of statutory and regulatory prohibitions on indecent broadcasts, on the ground that the FCC's context-based approach to determining indecency is unconstitutionally vague in its entirety. 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in invalidating a finding by the FCC that a broadcast including nudity was indecent within the meaning of statutory and regulatory prohibitions on indecent broadcasts, on the ground that the FCC's context-based approach to determining indecency is unconstitutionally vague in its entirety.

Question:

Does the current indecency enforcement regime violate the First or Fifth Amendments?

FCC v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS
ORAL ARGUMENT

01/10/12

Listen to Oral Argument in FCC v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS
Holding: VACATED AND REMANDED (SS no part)
Vote: 8-0
Majority: Kennedy, Chief Justice Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Kagan
Concurring: Ginsburg
Recused: Sotomayor
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)