Federal Communications Commission and United States v. Beach Communications, Inc., et al. (508 U.S. 307)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 1, 1993 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 508 U.S. 307 · 113 S. Ct. 2096
- Decided
- June 1, 1993
- Term
- October Term 1992
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. In providing for the regulation of cable television facilities, Congress has drawn a distinction between facilities that serve separately owned and managed buildings and those that serve one or more buildings under common ownership or management. Cable facilities in the latter category are exempt from regulation as long as they provide services without using public rights-of-way. The question before us is whether there is any conceivable rational basis justifying this distinction for purposes of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. I The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (Cable Act), 98 Stat. 2779, amended the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., to establish a national framework for regulating cable television. One objective of the Cable Act was to set out “franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the' needs and interests of the local community.” §601(2), 47 U. S. C. § 521(2). To that end, Congress provided for the franchising of cable systems by local governmental authorities, § 621(a), 47 U. S. C. § 541(a), and prohibited any person from operating a cable system without a franchise, subject to certain exceptions, § 621(b), 47 U. S. C. § 541(b). Section 602(7) of the Communications…
Excerpt of a 24,393-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.