Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., Inc. 286 F. 1003 (1923)

FACTS: DC Supreme Court had ordered Hoover to issue Intercity Radio a license to operate a radio station in NYC. Hoover appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit Court. Intercity claimed that Hoover had in the past issued them a license to operate under the 1912 Radio Act. When the license expired in 1921, Hoover refused to renew it. Intercity claimed that they fulfilled all the requirements for a radio license and should not have been denied a renewal. Further, Intercity claimed that Hoover's authority did not extend beyond certifying that the requirements for a license were met. Hoover admitted he had denied a renewal of Intercity's license but justified his action by saying that he couldn't find a wavelength for Intercity that didn't interfere with other stations. He also claimed that the Act gave him the discretion to refuse licenses.

ISSUES: Could Hoover deny a license to a station that meet all the requirements for a license?

DECISION/RESULTS: No

RATIONALE/REASONS: Sections 1 & 2 of the Act acknowledge that interference is a problem, and that the license would state the wavelengths authorized for use by a station and the hours it could operate. The intent of Congress was to prescribe regulations that would minimize interference not prevent it. Further, the Secretary of Commerce and Labor was only authorized to deal with the issue of minimizing interference. The Court cited Congress, the Attorney General and the chairman of the Commerce Committee in the Senate as a way to discover the intent of the Act. The chairman stated, "it is compulsory with the Secretary of Commerce and Labor that upon application these licenses shall be issued." Thus, Hoover had the duty of finding a wavelength for Intercity and issuing a license.

NOTE: writ of mandamus - a court order compelling the performance of an act

PHILOSOPHY: Constructionist. The Court went back and looked at the intent behind the Radio Act of 1912 saying "While committee reports are not binding upon the courts in interpreting statutes, they are indicative of the legislative intention." They then used the report as a guide to interpreting the Act.

THEORY: Access theory. The Court looked critically at who has access to the airwaves and under what conditions.

IMPACT: The power of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to maintain an orderly use of the spectrum was severely hampered. Chaos grew. Further Radio Conferences in 1923, 24, and 25 failed to solve the problem.