Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10-1293 | 2d Cir. |
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
NEW: The Supreme Court DECLINES a request from red states seeking to block a Biden policy that directs the government to assess the societal costs of greenhouse gases. The administration can implement the policy for now. No public dissents from the court's one-sentence order.
The Supreme Court rules 6-3 against two men on Arizona's death row who say they received ineffective assistance of counsel in state court. SCOTUS says that federal courts reviewing their cases can't hold evidentiary hearings to fully assess their ineffective-counsel claims.
In a dispute over arbitration rights, the Supreme Court unanimously sides with a Taco Bell worker who sued the franchise owner for wage violations. The dispute involved whether the company waited too long to try to move the lawsuit out of court and into arbitration.
The Supreme Court adds no new cases to its docket in this morning's order list. Stephen Breyer writes a brief statement regarding the court's denial of review in a capital case; he reiterates his doubts about the constitutionality of the death penalty. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052322zor_p86a.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: The court will issue orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT, followed by opinions starting at 10. You know the drill: We'll be firing up our live blog and breaking it all down. See you there.
Announcement of orders and opinions for Monday, May 23 - SCOTUSblog
On Monday, May 23, we will be live blogging as the court releases orders from the May 19 conference and opinio...
www.scotusblog.com