Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project
In a dispute over FCC media ownership rules under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Court unanimously ruled that the FCC had not acted arbitrarily and capriciously, reversing the Third Circuit and allowing it to relax cross-media ownership rules.· AI-written
141 S. Ct. 1150 · No. 19-1231 · 2020 term · Roberts Court
Decided Apr 1, 2021 · argued Jan 19, 2021
Economic activity · Federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: radio and television
Majority opinion: Brett Kavanaugh
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed. Federal Communications Commission won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.
Federal Communications Commission was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U.S. 414 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with media ownership rules that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can set under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The case dates back to the Third Circuit rulings from 2002 that have blocked FCC decisions to relax media ownership rules related to cross-ownership of newspapers with television and radio broadcast stations. In the present case, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in April 2021 that the FCC had not made arbitrary and capricious rulemaking decisions in the context of the Administrative Procedure Act, nor had the requirement to review minority ownership of stations under Congressional mandate as stated in the Third Circuit's ruling, reversing this last ruling and allowing the FCC to proceed to relax cross-media ownership rules.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2020 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Brett KavanaughWrote the majority opinion
Clarence ThomasWrote a concurrence
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Amy BarrettJoined the majority
Neil GorsuchJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Federal Communications CommissionFederal Communications Commission
- Respondent
- Prometheus Radio ProjectConsumer, consumer organization
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Communication Act of 1934, as amended
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Apr 1, 2021DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed. Federal Communications Commission won.
- Jan 19, 2021ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: vacated, with a dissent.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
7 other argued cases since 1946 on federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: radio and television, newest first.
- Community Television of Southern California v. Gottfried et al.459 U.S. 498Feb 22, 1983 · 459 U.S. 498Economic activity7–27–2 band
- CBS, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.453 U.S. 367Jul 1, 1981 · 453 U.S. 367Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Federal Communications Commission et al. v. WNCN Listeners Guild et al.450 U.S. 582Mar 24, 1981 · 450 U.S. 582Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Federal Communications Commission v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting et al.436 U.S. 775Jun 12, 1978 · 436 U.S. 775Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Federal Communications Commission v. Allentown Broadcasting Corp.349 U.S. 358Jun 6, 1955 · 349 U.S. 358Economic activity7–18–1 band
- Federal Communications Commission v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc.347 U.S. 284Apr 5, 1954 · 347 U.S. 284Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Federal Communications Commission v. Woko, Inc.329 U.S. 223Dec 9, 1946 · 329 U.S. 223Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.