• About
  • Contact
  • Staff
  • Home
  • Essays
  • Forum
  • Podcasts
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Classics

June 25, 2012|Due Process Clause, FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., Justice Ginsburg, Justice Kennedy, Justice Sotomayor, multiemployer pension plans, withdrawal liability

Why FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., Fascinates an ERISA Lawyer

by Tom Christina|

In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., and a companion case involving ABC, seven Justices ruled that decency standards promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission were so vague that their application to television programs broadcast by the respondents’ affiliates violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  On that basis, the Court voided FCC orders finding that the respondents had violated 18 U.S.C. § 1464 (and imposing what I take to be a civil forfeiture of almost $1.25 million on ABC’s affiliates).  Justice Ginsburg concurred in the result on First Amendment grounds, and Justice Sotomayor did not participate in the consideration or decision in the case.  

Before the programs at issue in last week’s decision were broadcast, the FCC’s stated policy on enforcement of its decency regulations was not to treat “fleeting expletives” or “a brief shot of nudity” as actionably indecent.  However, in an order arising from the airing of an entirely different television program (the Golden Globe awards), the FCC enunciated a broader policy regarding what constitutes “actionable indecency.”  In essence, the FCC’s “Golden Globes” order announced a change in enforcement policy under which fleeting expletives or a brief shot of nudity might be treated as actionably indecent.  The FCC’s application of the policy announced in the Golden Globes order to programs broadcast before that order issued prompted Justice Kennedy to write for the Court

The Commission’s lack of notice to Fox and ABC that its interpretation had changed  . . . “fail[ed] to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited.” [United States v.] Williams, [553U.S.285, 304 (2008).]  This would be true with respect to a regulatory change this abrupt on any subject . . .

Of course, the respondents had notice long before their programs aired that the broadcast of non-fleeting expletives or of other-than-brief shots of nudity could have occasioned FCC action.  Thus, the respondents knew that the broadcast of expletives and the broadcast of shots of nudity were categories of conduct subject to FCC regulation.  This general awareness obviously was insufficient as notice satisfying due process, and in the passage quoted above, the Court’s opinion gives us to understand that this is so quite apart from any doctrine of prior restraint or chilling effect applicable only in the context of the First Amendment.

Thus, with only a little ascent up the ladder of generalization, the rule in FCC v. Fox Television might prohibit a substantive change in any regulation of conduct in a category known to the actor in advance to be subject to regulation if the change has adverse consequences for the regulated party, at least as applied to brief, episodic conduct all of which takes place before notice of the change.

But how might that rule apply to a regulatory change announced during conduct that by its nature takes place, if at all, only as a process and only over a prolonged period?  For example, how might  FCC v. Fox Television apply to rules governing the imposition of liability based on the accumulation by a multiemployer pension plan of an unfunded accrued pension benefit obligation over the course of a given employer’s participation in that plan?  Or, as practitioners in my field say, “What about withdrawal liability?”

In a subsequent post I will delve into the mechanics of “withdrawal liability” a bit more, but for now I will confine myself to saying that there is at least a possibility that FCC v. Fox Television may have implications for the imposition of this statutory assessment.  That is because there is at least some indication in the Court’s opinion that notice of the exposure to liability based on prolonged, non-episodic conduct is required before the actor takes the first step in the process constituting the conduct.

That indication springs from how the Court dealt with a mootness argument made on the agency’s behalf.  The FCC had argued that the case was moot with respect to Fox Television because it had not imposed forfeitures on Fox’s affiliates and would not take the facts that led to the finding of actionable indecency into account in any subsequent proceeding.  The Court rejected this argument at least in part because the FCC has statutory authority to take past conduct into account in subsequent proceedings.  Thus, the agency’s “policy of forbearance” did not render Fox Television’s action moot.

 Though the Commission claims it will not consider the prior indecent broadcasts “in any context,” it has the statutory power to take into account “any history of prior offenses” when setting the level of a forfeiture penalty. . .  Just as in the First Amendment context, the due process protection against vague regulations “does not leave [regulated parties] . . . at the mercy of noblesse oblige.”

In reading that passage, recall that the precise issue for purposes of the Due Process Clause hinged on the difference between the imposition of liability based on “fleeting expletives” and the imposition of liability based on “repeated expletives.”  Viewed in that light, the FCC’s power, as the Court describes it in this passage, is surely at least analogous to treating several “discrete” instances of broadcasting “fleeting expletives” during primetime as a single act of broadcasting “repeated expletives.”  (I admit that the analogy depends on supposing exaggeratedly long intervals of time demarcating each of the “repetitions” of the expletives, but given the state of the delegation doctrine, we must all admit that Congress left it to the FCC to come up with a methodology for telling apart several fleeting expletives from one long repetition of expletives.)   If that analogy holds, then, it would seem that liability cannot attach at the completion of a process known in advance to be subject to regulation unless notice of the potential for imposing that liability is given before the process begins.

 

Tom Christina

Tom Christina is a shareholder of Ogletree Deakins, where he practices employee benefits law. He was credited by the Wall Street Journal, Vox, and the New York Times with being the first to call attention to the phrase “established by a State under section 1311” of the Affordable Care Act that was at the heart of King v. Burwell. Tom served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and later as an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice during the Reagan administration. He last guest-blogged here in July, 2012, covering for the vacationing Michael Greve.

About the Author

Moral Preening and Capital Punishment
Preliminary Thoughts on Arizona v. United States: Part I

Recent Popular Posts

  • Popular
  • Today Week Month All
  • The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, a Frontier Anthology January 11, 2019
  • A Badge of Discrimination March 30, 2020
  • Did Thatcher Leave a Legacy of Freedom? April 8, 2014
  • God and Man in Hollywood July 15, 2016
  • A New Reagan October 23, 2017
Ajax spinner

Related Posts

Related

Book Reviews

A Mirror of the 20th-Century Congress

by Joseph Postell

Wright undermined the very basis of his local popularity—the decentralized nature of the House—by supporting reforms that gave power to the party leaders.

Read More

The Graces of Flannery O'Connor

by Henry T. Edmondson III

O’Connor’s correspondence is a goldmine of piercing insight and startling reflections on everything from literature to philosophy to raising peacocks.

Read More

Liberty Classics

Rereading Politica in the Post-Liberal Moment

by Glenn A. Moots

Althusius offers a rich constitutionalism that empowers persons to thrive alongside one another in deliberate communities.

Read More

James Fenimore Cooper and the American Experiment

by Melissa Matthes

In The American Democrat, James Fenimore Cooper defended democracy against both mob rule and majority tyranny.

Read More

Podcasts

Stuck With Decadence

A discussion with Ross Douthat

Ross Douthat discusses with Richard Reinsch his new book The Decadent Society.

Read More

Can the Postmodern Natural Law Remedy Our Failing Humanism?

A discussion with Graham McAleer

Graham McAleer discusses how postmodern natural law can help us think more coherently about human beings and our actions.

Read More

Did the Civil Rights Constitution Distort American Politics?

A discussion with Christopher Caldwell

Christopher Caldwell discusses his new book, The Age of Entitlement.

Read More

America, Land of Deformed Institutions

A discussion with Yuval Levin

Yuval Levin pinpoints that American alienation and anger emerges from our weak political, social, and religious institutions.

Read More

Recent Posts

  • The Just Restraint of the Vicious

    For some contemporary criminal justice reformers, devotion to ideology leads to illogical conclusions about human nature and character change.
    by Gerard T. Mundy

  • Too Immature to be Punished?

    When I look back on my own life, I think I knew by the age of ten that one should not strangle old ladies in their beds.
    by Theodore Dalrymple

  • A Badge of Discrimination

    The British National Health Service has spoken: Wear the badge or declare yourself to be a bigot.
    by Theodore Dalrymple

  • A Judicial Takeover of Asylum Policy?

    Thuraissigiam threatens to make both the law and the facts in every petition for asylum—and there are thousands of them—a matter for the courts.
    by Thomas Ascik

  • The Environmental Uncertainty Principle

    By engaging in such flagrant projection, the Times has highlighted once again the problem with groupthink in the climate discussion.
    by Paul Schwennesen

Blogroll

  • Acton PowerBlog
  • Cafe Hayek
  • Cato@Liberty
  • Claremont
  • Congress Shall Make No Law
  • EconLog
  • Fed Soc Blog
  • First Things
  • Hoover
  • ISI First Principles Journal
  • Legal Theory Blog
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Pacific Legal Liberty Blog
  • Point of Law
  • Power Line
  • Professor Bainbridge
  • Ricochet
  • Right Reason
  • Spengler
  • The American
  • The Beacon Blog
  • The Foundry
  • The Originalism Blog
  • The Public Discourse
  • University Bookman
  • Via Meadia
  • Volokh

Archives

  • All Posts & Publications
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Forum
  • Liberty Law Blog
  • Liberty Law Talk

About

Law & Liberty’s focus is on the classical liberal tradition of law and political thought and how it shapes a society of free and responsible persons. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law & Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.

The opinions expressed on Law & Liberty are solely those of the contributors to the site and do not reflect the opinions of Liberty Fund.
  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Contact
  • Archive

© 2021 Liberty Fund, Inc.

This site uses local and third-party cookies to analyze traffic. If you want to know more, click here.
By closing this banner or clicking any link in this page, you agree with this practice.Accept Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary Always Enabled

Subscribe
Get Law and Liberty's latest content delivered to you daily
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Close