Media Ownership
2002 Media Ownership Review and Prometheus Ruling
Media Ownership Limits Under Attack in Court
MAP Wins Victory for the Public!
The Third Circuit Court decision in the Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC case agrees with MAP that preserving democracy is more important than helping big companies grow bigger.
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, President and CEO of the Media Access Project, and lead counsel for the citizens groups in Promtheus Radio Project v. FCC, has issued this statement on the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversing the FCC's June 2, 2003 decision deregulating media ownership.
Read the summary of the Court's decision.
2002 Media Ownership Proceeding in the U.S. Court of Appeals
In June 2003, the FCC announced its changes to media ownership rules. For more information about the FCC's decision see our Media Ownership FCC page.
On August 13, 2003, MAP's attorneys asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to throw out the FCC's media ownership rules on behalf of its client, the Philadelphia-based Prometheus Radio Project. As part of a careful strategy, MAP and its allies filed in three separate federal courts on the same day in order to move the case out of an unfriendly forum. MAP is working in close coordination with attorneys at the Georgetown Law Center’s Institute for Public Representation in the suit. After MAP’s President and CEO represented the public interest organizations at oral argument, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals stayed the FCC's order, on September 3rd, 2003 thus preventing the rules from being enforced until court review is complete.
Subsequently, there have been several procedural battles, including several industry requests that the Third Circuit in Philadelphia transfer the case to a federal court in Washington DC, and some changes to the briefing schedule. All briefs will be filed by January 6, 2004, and oral argument will be held February 11, 2004 in Philadelphia. Third Circuit Prometheus v. FCC web site.
MAP is currently working on its briefs and reply briefs and preparing for oral argument.
MAP Statements:
MAP's Major Filings:
MAP's Procedural Filings:
MAP Allies' Major filings:
Court Orders:
- Order granting MAP's request to stay the FCC's order. (9/3/03)
- Order granting MAP's request to deny the networks motion, keep the case in Philadelphia. (9/15/03)
- Order denying industry's second request to transfer the case. (10/01/03)
- Court issues Oral Argument Order (1/08/04)
- The Court directs counsel to file letter briefs commenting on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, H.R. 2673, 108th Cong. § 629 (2004), which sets the national television audience reach limitation at 39 percent, and provides for quadrennial review of other ownership rules. (01/27/04)
MAP's Opponents' Major Filings:
Main industry briefs attacking FCC for failing to deregulate enough (11/4/03):
Main industry reply briefs attacking FCC for failing to deregulate enough. (1/05/03):
MAP's Opponents Procedural Filings:
Oral Argument (02/11/04)
- Court issues Oral Argument Order (1/08/04)
- Information on parties participating in oral arguments:
- Party information if the Court decides to include arguments about the national TV ownership cap.
- Party information if the Court decides not to include arguments about the national TV ownership cap.
Letters addressing impact of Congressional adoption of national television ownership limit on the Prometheus case:
- Court Order requesting letter briefs (01/27/04)
- Anti-Deregulatory Petitioners:
- Deregulatory Petitioners:
National Cable Ownership Rule and Attribution Rule
For background information about the substance of these rules:
These rules were originally passed in 1992, and have been subject to many years of litigation in court. In May 2000, The D.C. Circuit upheld the law requiring the FCC to impose a national cap. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the FCC's rules as a violation of the First Amendment in March 2001. This case is Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. FCC, 240 F.3d 1126 (2001).
Media Access Project strongly opposed this decision. This decision set a new precedent, making it significantly more difficult for the FCC to adopt rules to promote the diversity of voices on the mass media.
MAP petitioned the D.C. Circuit for a rehearing en banc, which means that MAP asked all the judges on the court would have reconsidered the case. The D. C. Circuit refused MAP's petition.
MAP then asked the Supreme Court to consider the case. Read MAP's petition for certiorari and MAP's reply to opposition's to MAP's petition. The Supreme Court refused MAP's petition.
Other filings before the Supreme Court on this issue were:
As a result of this litigation, the FCC has initiated a new proceeding to reconsider the national cable ownership cap and the attribution rules. Click here for more information about those proceedings.
Read MAP's brief in the Time Warner case.
In addition to filing in the above case, Media Access Project represented Consumers Union in a challenge asking the FCC to enforce the cable ownership cap. The cap had not ever been enforced even though Congress required the FCC to adopt the cap in 1992. Although the FCC's original decision not to enforce the rule may have been reasonable, the FCC's refusal to enforce the cap over many years was unreasonable and allowed significant cable consolidation.
Read MAP's motion and reply.
National Television Ownership Rule and Local Cable-Broadcast Ownership Rule
The national television ownership rule limits the total number of television stations nationally a single entity may own. The local cable broadcast ownership rule prohibits a local television station owner from also owning a cable operator in the same area. Both of these rules were attacked in court by several members of the broadcast and cable industries.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued decision in this case on February 19, 2002 in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The court remanded, but left in place, the national television rule. The court vacated the cable-broadcast rule.
Read MAP's brief filed in this case.
MAP issued a statement condemning this decision.
During the case, CBS/Viacom asked the court to temporarily suspend (or "stay") the rules while the case was pending. MAP opposed this request. The court granted CBS/Viacom the stay.
The NAB and the FCC have filed petitions for Rehearing at the D.C. Circuit, asking the D.C. Circuit to reconsider its decision and to hear the case en banc (with all the sitting judges).
FCC petition
NAB petition
If the D.C. Circuit does not rehear the case, the FCC or private parties, including MAP, may decide whether to seek review by the Supreme Court. If these efforts fail, the FCC will conduct new proceedings in response to the Court's decision.
Local Television Ownership
The local television ownership rule limits the situations under which a single company can own two television stations in the same area. Sinclair Broadcast Group challenged this rule in court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in this case on April 2, 2002 in Sinclair Broadcast Group v. FCC. The Court remanded, but did not vacate, this rule.
Although this case is a small setback, MAP issued a statement explaining that this decision shows how Supreme Court precedent ought to be applied to FCC regulations promoting diversity, but showed the danger of the Fox decision in March 2002.
MAP advised the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University, which filed a brief in this case.
Sinclair Broadcasting filed a petition for rehearing on May 17, 2002 asking the D.C. Circuit to reconsider the decision.
Next, the D.C. Circuit will decide whether to rehear the case. After that, parties may seek review in Supreme Court. If the courts do not reconsider the decision, the FCC will implement the D.C. Circuit's April 2, 2002 decision.
Back to Main Media Consolidation/Diversity Page
Privacy Policy • Contact Us
© 2001, 2002 Media Access Project
Site by e.designs
| 
