American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
13-461	2d Cir.	Apr 22, 2014 Tr.Aud.	Jun 25, 2014	6-3	Breyer	OT 2013

Holding: Aereo publicly performs copyrighted works, in violation of the Copyright Act’s Transmit Clause, when it sells its subscribers a technologically complex service that allows them to watch television programs over the Internet at about the same time as the programs are broadcast over the air.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 25, 2014. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Thomas and Justice Alito joined.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Symposium: Aereo decision injects uncertainty into copyright (Mitch Stoltz)
Symposium: Preferring substance over form and nature over manner, Supreme Court finds that Aereo runs afoul of the purposes of the Copyright Act (Eleanor Lackman)
Symposium: A win, though a narrow one (thanks to Breyer, J.), for copyright owners (David Post)
Symposium: Series finale for Aereo, but will there be a spin-off? (Terry Hart)
Symposium: Aereo copyright decision creates uncertainty for the Cloud (Matthew Schruers)
Symposium: Aereo, disruptive technology, and statutory interpretation (Peter Menell and David Nimmer)
How copyright law blocks cheap Internet TV: In Plain English (Tom Goldstein)
Opinion analysis: A clever new technology thwarted -- for now (Lyle Denniston)
But what about the “cloud”? The Aereo argument in Plain English (Amy Howe)
Argument analysis: Slipping down the digital slope (Lyle Denniston)
A “view” from the Court: Big arguments, preceded by an even bigger opinion (Mark Walsh)
An audio discussion with the players in the Aereo broadcasting fight (Kali Borkoski)
Aereo -- Just the middleman, or a scofflaw? In Plain English (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Free TV, at a bargain price? (Lyle Denniston)
Alito rejoins the Court in two cases (Lyle Denniston)
Petition of the day (Mary Pat Dwyer)
Review of streaming TV issue urged (Lyle Denniston)
Challenge to streaming TV (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Oct 11 2013	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 12, 2013)
Nov 4 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neitiher party, received from counsel for the respondent.
Nov 5 2013	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 12, 2013.
Nov 6 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae breifs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Nov 8 2013	Brief amicus curiae of The Media Institute filed.
Nov 12 2013	Brief amici curiae of The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP), et al. filed.
Nov 12 2013	Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Broadcasters, et al. filed.
Nov 12 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation
Nov 12 2013	Brief amici curiae of Time Warner Inc., and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. filed.
Nov 12 2013	Brief amici curiae of National Football League, and Major League Baseball filed.
Nov 12 2013	Brief amici curiae of Viacom, Inc., et al. filed.
Nov 12 2013	Brief amici curiae of Copyright Alliance, and Various Professors filed.
Dec 12 2013	Brief of respondent Aereo, Inc., fka Bamboom Labs, Inc. in opposition filed.
Dec 23 2013	Reply of petitioners American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al. filed.
Dec 24 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 10, 2014.
Jan 10 2014	Petition GRANTED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Feb 3 2014	Motion for leave to intervene filed by FilmOn X, LLC, et al.
Feb 7 2014	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Feb 10 2014	Opposition of respondent to motion to intervene
Feb 11 2014	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Feb 12 2014	Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 28, 2014.
Feb 12 2014	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.
Feb 18 2014	Reply of FilmOn X LLC to respondent's opposition to motion to intervene.
Feb 24 2014	Joint appendix filed.
Feb 24 2014	Brief of petitioners American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al. filed.
Feb 26 2014	Brief amicus curiae of The Media Institute filed.
Feb 27 2014	Record received from U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit, a portion of this record is SEALED. This record is electronic (Not PACER).
Feb 27 2014	Brief amici curiae of Professors Peter S. Menell and David Nimmer filed.
Feb 28 2014	Record received from U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York (1Box), this record is SEALED.
Mar 3 2014	Motion for leave to intervene filed by FilmOn X, LLC, et al. DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), et al. filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Broadcasters, et al. filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of BSA / The Software Alliance in support of neither party filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of Center for Democracy & Technology, et al. in support of neither party filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of Viacom, Inc., et al. filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of National Football League and Major League Baseball filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Cablevision Systems Corp. filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of Copyright Alliance and Various Professors filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Ralph Oman, Former Register of Copyrights of the United States filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, et al. filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of The Patent, Trademark & Copyright Section of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia in support of neither party filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of International Center for Law & Economics, et al. filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), et al. filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of Time Warner Inc. and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. filed.
Mar 10 2014	CIRCULATED.
Mar 12 2014	Motion of the Deputy Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Mar 26 2014	Brief of respondent Aereo, Inc., fka Bamboom Labs, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 1 2014	Brief amici curiae of Small and Independent Broadcasters filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of Computer & Communications Industry Association and Mozilla Corporation filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of FilmOn X, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of DISH Network L.L.C., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of 36 Intellectual Property and Copyright Law Professors filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of Law Professors and Scholars filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of The Consumer Federation of America, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amicus curiae of American Cable Association filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of The Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed.
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of Competition Law Professors, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 14 2014	Reply of petitioners American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 16 2014	Justice Alito is no longer recused in this case.
Apr 18 2014	Motion of the Deputy Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Apr 22 2014	Argued. For petitioners: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.; and Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: David C. Frederick, Washington, D. C.
Apr 23 2014	Letter from counsel for the respondents filed. (Distributed)
Jun 25 2014	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined.
Jul 28 2014	JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Jul 28 2014	Record returned for U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York.

Featured Posts

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Interesting 5-4 coalition holds that the ACCA reaches robberies that require force sufficient to overcome resistance (Corrected) – Rory Little
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released additional orders from the January 11 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in CSX Transportation Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation Inc. and Toshiba Corp. v. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira and Stokeling v. United States.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority and Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson and Azar v. Allina Health Services.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Knick v. Township of Scott and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair.
On Friday, the justices meet for their January 18 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions relisted for this conference.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Interesting 5-4 coalition holds that the ACCA reaches robberies that require force sufficient to overcome resistance (Corrected) – Rory Little

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award