Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

ABC, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 08-0841-ag (L) (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Number: infco20120801054 Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 01, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2012
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED and the forfeiture order of the FCC is VACATED. Petitioners ABC, Inc., ABC Television Affiliates Association, and ABC-affiliated television stations (collectively "ABC") petitioned for review of a forfeiture order against forty-four ABC-affiliated television stations after the FCC determined that the display of a woman's nude buttocks in an episode of NYPD Blue was
More

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED and the forfeiture order of the FCC is VACATED.

Petitioners ABC, Inc., ABC Television Affiliates Association, and ABC-affiliated television stations (collectively "ABC") petitioned for review of a forfeiture order against forty-four ABC-affiliated television stations after the FCC determined that the display of a woman's nude buttocks in an episode of NYPD Blue was actionably indecent. See In re Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their February 25, 2003 Broadcast of the Program "NYPD Blue", 23 FCC Rcd. 3147 (2008). We followed Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 613 F.3d 317, 335 (2d Cir. 2010) (rehearing en banc denied), which held that the indecency policy under which the forfeiture order was issued was unconstitutionally vague. We therefore granted the petition for review and vacated the FCC's forfeiture order. See ABC, 404 F. App'x at 533. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated our decision.

The Supreme Court determined that the FCC's forfeiture order should be set aside because the Commission failed to give ABC fair notice under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, prior to the broadcast of the episode of NYPD Blue in question, that fleeting nudity could be found actionably indecent. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2307, 2320 (2012). Based on the Supreme Court's decision in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., we GRANT the petition for review and VACATE the FCC's forfeiture order.

FootNotes


** Sean Lev is substituted for Austin C. Schlick, who was substituted for Matthew B. Berry, who briefed and argued this case, as counsel for Respondent Federal Communications Commission.
*** Stuart Delery is substituted for Tony West, who was substituted for Gregory G. Katsas, who briefed this case, as counsel for Respondent United States of America.
* The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer