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

Academic highlight: Levitt on the collateral consequences of Department of Commerce v. New York – Amanda Frost

New rules mean tighter deadlines, fewer words – Amy Howe

Relist Watch: The Muller Report – John Elwood
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
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 will release orders from the April 18 conference on Monday at 9:30 a.m.; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions that were relisted for this conference.
There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m.
On Monday, the justices hear oral argument in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media and Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis.
On Tuesday, the justices hear oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York, Mitchell v. Wisconsin and Rehaif v. United States.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Quarles v. United States and Taggart v. Lorenzen.
On Friday, the justices met for their April 26 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, 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 -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- 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.
- 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 Decisions
- Biestek v. Berryhill A vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data during a Social Security disability benefits hearing upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence” in federal court under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
- Bucklew v. Precythe Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain; Russell Bucklew’s as-applied challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol -- that it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition -- fails to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test.
- Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of Securities and Exchange Commission Rules 10b–5(a) and (c), as well as the relevant statutory provisions, even if the disseminator cannot be held liable under Rule 10b–5(b).
- Republic of Sudan v. Harrison When civil process is served on a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. §1608(a)(3) requires a mailing to be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the foreign state.
- Sturgeon v. Frost Alaska’s Nation River is not public land; and like all non-public lands and navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks, it is exempt under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act from the National Park Service’s ordinary regulatory authority.
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.
- Barton v. Barr Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).
- 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.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 63

Cases decided 31

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Apr. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
	1 Orders Opinions	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12 Conference	13
14	15 Orders IANCU V. BRUNETTI (18-302) EMULEX CORP. V. VARJABEDIAN (18-459)	16 PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES V. NEWTON (18-389) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KAESTNER FAMILY TRUST (18-457)	17 UNITED STATES V. DAVIS (18-431) MCDONOUGH V. SMITH (18-485)	18 Conference	19	20
21	22 Orders FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE V. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA (18-481) FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS V. DAVIS (18-525)	23 MITCHELL V. WISCONSIN (18-6210) REHAIF V. UNITED STATES (17-9560) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. NEW YORK (18-966) Opinions	24 QUARLES V. UNITED STATES (17-778) TAGGART V. LORENZEN (18-489)	25	26 Conference	27
28	29 Orders	30

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

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	63
Cases decided	31
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	74

Editor's Note :

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

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Academic highlight: Levitt on the collateral consequences of Department of Commerce v. New York – Amanda Frost

New rules mean tighter deadlines, fewer words – Amy Howe

Relist Watch: The Muller Report – John Elwood

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of April 19, 2019

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Apr. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award