|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Jan 10, 2012
||Jun 21, 2012||8-0||Kennedy||OT 2011|
Holding: Because the FCC failed to give Fox and ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent, the FCC’s standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague.
Plain English Summary: In 2004, the Federal Communications Commission, the government agency that regulates radio and television stations (and, sometimes, those stations’ networks), changed its policy on what it considers “indecent” and thus could not be put on radio or TV between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., because children might be watching or listening. Before 2004, the FCC banned vulgar four-letter words only if they had been repeated over and over again. With the change in policy, the FCC said it would ban even a single, fleeting use of such a word during the daytime hours. It later said that it would also ban even momentary glimpses, on TV, of a nude body if it was shown in a sexually provocative way. The Supreme Court was asked in this case to decide whether it violates the free-speech rights of radio and TV stations, and their networks, for the FCC to impose such a broad ban. In deciding the case, however, the Court did not settle whether the FCC policy violated the First Amendment. Instead, it held only that broadcasters had a constitutional right to be warned in advance of what the new policy prohibited, and the FCC had imposed its changed policy after the broadcasts had aired, rather than before. The FCC has the option now of reconsidering its policy, or keeping it as is, and awaiting a new constitutional challenge in court. The Court’s ruling was by unanimous vote, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not participate, because she had some involvement with the case earlier when she was a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 21, 2012. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. (Sotomayor, J., recused.)
Merits Briefs for the Petitioners
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners
Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party
Merit Briefs for the Respondents
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents
Just in: The next Supreme Court opinion day will be next Monday. The court expects to release one or more opinions in argued cases from the current term.
End of an era: Here is NBC News prez Noah Oppenheim's memo about Pete Williams' plan to retire this summer
The Supreme Court sides with Sen. Ted Cruz in his First Amendment challenge to a federal campaign-finance law that limits how and when candidates can recoup loans that they make to their own campaigns. The vote is 6-3 along ideological lines.
In an immigration case, SCOTUS rules 5-4 that federal courts do NOT have jurisdiction to review certain executive-branch factual findings that determine whether non-citizens are eligible for "adjustment of status." Those findings can dictate whether a person is deported.
SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases: Jones v. Hendrix (a habeas corpus case) and SEC v. Cochran (a case about the power of district courts to hear challenges to the constitutionality of the SEC's administrative law proceedings). Full order list here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051622zor_hgcj.pdf
We're live now on SCOTUSblog's homepage or at https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/announcement-of-orders-and-opinions-for-monday-may-16/
Today at SCOTUS: The court will issue one or more opinions in argued cases at 10 a.m. EDT. But first, orders on pending petitions at 9:30. We'll fire up our live blog at 9:25 to break it all down and answer your questions. Grab some ☕️ and come join us: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/announcement-of-orders-and-opinions-for-monday-may-16/