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.
United States v. Zenith Radio Corporation et al. 12 F. 2d 614 (1926)
FACTS: The US is charging Zenith with violating Section 1 of the Radio Act of 1912. On Dec. 19, 1925, Zenith operated a station that was not in accordance with its license. It also violated the terms of its license on several other occasions. Specifically, Zenith was licensed to operate only on Thursday nights from 10 to 12 pm CST and then only when GE's Denver station wasn't using the wavelength. Zenith readily admitted its violations.
ISSUES: Did Zenith violate the terms of its license? Does the Secretary of Commerce and Labor have the authority to specify terms?
DECISION/RESULTS: No! No.
RATIONALE/REASONS: Section 1 stated that violation of the Act was a misdemeanor. The penalty for violation was a $500 fine. Section 2 stated that the license would specify the wavelength, the hours of operation and the power (range) of the station. Section 4 gave the Secretary of Commerce and Labor the power to enforce Section 2. The penalties for violation were a $100 fine. Repeated violations could lead to the license being revoked. The Secretary of Commerce and Labor had no authority to create regulations. The regulations were specified in Section 4 (the case quotes the first, second twelfth and fifteenth regulations from Section 4). The court found that Zenith was in violation of the fifteenth regulation. However, Section 2 does not specify how the Secretary of Commerce and Labor should determine hours of operation. Nothing is said to give the Secretary the discretion to decide between two stations wanting the same hours. When a statute is ambiguous, no violation is possible.
NOTE: none
PHILOSOPHY: Constructionist. The Court looked at the "plain" meaning of the Act saying, "Reference has been made to the rule of practical construction. It is sufficient to say that administrative rulings cannot add to the terms of an act of Congress and make conduct criminal which such laws leave untouched."
THEORY: Ad hoc balancing theory. The Court is trying to weigh the various sections of the Act in balance to see if they give the Secretary any leeway in terms of enforcement.
IMPACT: Chaos! The Courts had essentially said that the Act was poorly written and that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor couldn't punish anyone for violating the restrictions of their license. As a result, Congress was forced to deal with the problem and the Radio Act of 1927 was passed. This Act created a temporary agency, the Federal Radio Commission, empowered to bring order to the spectrum. After one year, power was to revert back to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. It never did. The 1927 Radio Act was tested in court and held up well. In 1933 FDR looked at government involvement in communications and saw that several agencies were involved. He formed a committee which recommended that one Federal Agency should oversee all of communications. This led to the 1934 Communication Act and the enabling of the FCC. The 1934 Communications Act contained much of the court tested 1927 Act.