No. In the Supreme Court of the United States FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONERS v. PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record MAKAN DELRAHIM Assistant Attorney General MALCOLM L. STEWART Deputy Solicitor General THOMAS M. JOHNSON, JR. MICHAEL F. MURRAY General Counsel Deputy Assistant Attorney General JACOB M. LEWIS Associate General Counsel AUSTIN L. RAYNOR Assistant to the Solicitor JAMES M. CARR General WILLIAM SCHER Attorneys Department of Justice Federal Communications Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Commission [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20554 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED To preserve competition and viewpoint diversity, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has his- torically restricted the ability of broadcasters to own multiple outlets in a single market. In Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 303 note, Congress directed the FCC to re- view these ownership rules every four years to “deter- mine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition,” and to “re- peal or modify any regulation [the FCC] determines to be no longer in the public interest.” In 2003, the FCC sought to relax certain ownership rules that it had de- termined were no longer necessary in light of dramati- cally changed market conditions. In a series of three appeals spanning the past 17 years, however, the same divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has repeatedly vacated the FCC’s at- tempts to reform its ownership rules. The effect of those decisions has been to maintain in effect decades- old FCC ownership restrictions that the agency be- lieves to be outmoded. In the decision below, the panel majority vacated the FCC’s revised ownership rules and other regulatory changes solely on the ground that the agency had not adequately analyzed the potential effect of the regulatory changes on female and minority ownership of broadcast stations. The question pre- sented is as follows: Whether the court of appeals erred in vacating as ar- bitrary and capricious the FCC orders under review, which, among other things, relaxed the agency’s cross- ownership restrictions to accommodate changed mar- ket conditions. (I) PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners were respondents in the court of appeals. They are the Federal Communications Commission and the United States. Respondents were petitioners and intervenors in the court of appeals.1 They are: Benton Institute for Broad- band and Society, Bonneville International Corporation, Common Cause, Connoisseur Media LLC, Cox Media Group LLC, Free Press, Fox Corporation, Independent Television Group, Media Alliance, Media Council Hawaii, Media Mobilizing Project, Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council, National Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians-Communications Workers of America, National Association of Broad- casters, National Organization for Women Foundation, News Corporation, News Media Alliance, Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., Office of Communication Inc. of the United Church of Christ, Prometheus Radio Project, Scranton Times L.P., and Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. RELATED PROCEEDING United States Court of Appeals (3d Cir.): Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, Nos. 17-1107, 17-1109, 17-1110, 17-1111, 18-1092, 18-1669, 18-1670, 18-1671, 18-2943, & 18-3335 (Sept. 23, 2019) (petition for reh’g de- nied, Nov. 20, 2019). 1 Certain respondents appeared in more than one capacity in the proceedings below. (II) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1 Statutory provisions involved ...................................................... 2 Statement ...................................................................................... 2 Reasons for granting the petition ............................................. 14 A. The decision below is wrong ............................................ 15 B. This case warrants the Court’s review ........................... 28 Conclusion ................................................................................... 34 Appendix A — Court of appeals opinion (Sept. 23, 2019) ..... 1a Appendix B — Excerpt of FCC 2016 Order (Aug. 25, 2016) ........................................... 57a Appendix C — Excerpt of FCC Reconsideration Order (Nov. 20, 2017) ......................................... 153a Appendix D — Excerpt of FCC Incubator Order (Aug. 3, 2018) ........................................... 243a Appendix E — Court of appeals order resolving motions (Sept. 27, 2019) ......................................... 273a Appendix F — Court of appeals order denying rehearing (Nov. 20, 2019) ......................................... 277a Appendix G — Court of appeals judgment (Sept. 23, 2019) ......................................... 280a Appendix H — Court of appeals amended judgment (Sept. 27, 2019) ......................................... 283a Appendix I — Statutory provisions .................................. 286a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: American Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 359 F.2d 624 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 843 (1996).............................................................. 31 Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962)........................................................ 16, 21 (III) IV Cases—Continued: Page Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971).............................................................. 23 FCC v. National Citizens Comm. for Broad., 436 U.S. 775 (1978)..................................................... passim FCC v. RCA Commc’ns, Inc., 346 U.S. 86 (1953) ............... 18 FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild, 450 U.S. 582 (1981) ........................................................................ 13, 19, 22 FERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass’n, 136 S. Ct. 760 (2016) ..................................................... 16, 21 FPC v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 365 U.S. 1 (1961) ................................................................. 19 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) ....................................................... 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25 NAACP v. FCC, 682 F.2d 993 (D.C. Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by, FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) ................. 23 National Broad. Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 (1943).................................................... 3, 17, 31 Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC: 373 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2004), as amended (June 3, 2016), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1123 (2005) ......................................... passim 545 U.S. 1123 (2005) .......................................................... 7 Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC: 652 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 567 U.S. 951 (2012) ............................................ 8, 9, 30 567 U.S. 951 (2012) ............................................................ 9 Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 824 F.3d 33 (3d Cir. 2016) ............................................................. 9, 15, 31 Stilwell v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 569 F.3d 514 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ........................... 12, 16, 17, 23 V Case—Continued: Page United States v. Storer Broad. Co., 351 U.S. 192 (1956) ...................................................................................... 3 Statutes: Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq. ........... 15 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) .................................................. 16, 286a Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-199, Div. B, Tit. VI, § 629(3), 118 Stat. 100 ........................................................... 4 Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 ...................................................... 4 47 U.S.C. 303 note (§ 202(h)) ........................ passim, 292a 47 U.S.C. 303 ................................................................ 17, 288a 47 U.S.C. 303(f ) .............................................................. 3, 288a 47 U.S.C. 309(a) ....................................................... 3, 17, 293a Miscellaneous: The 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review, In re, 18 FCC Rcd 4726 (2003) ................................................. 4, 29 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review, In re, 18 FCC Rcd 13,620 (2003) ................................................ 5, 6 2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review, In re, 23 FCC Rcd 2010 (2008) ................................................... 7, 8 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review, In re, 26 FCC Rcd 17,489 (2011) .................................................. 24 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review, In re, 29 FCC Rcd 4371 (2014) ............................................... 24, 27 Amendment of Sections 73.34, 73.240, and 73.636 of the Commission’s Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and Television Broad. Stations, In re, 50 FCC 2d 1046, amended on reconsideration, 53 FCC 2d 589 (1975) ................... 5, 25 VI Miscellaneous—Continued: