This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court held that, based on the record, the FCC’s conclusion that repealing or modifying three ownership rules was not likely to harm minority and female ownership was supported.
The FCC had previously concluded that three of its ownership rules were no longer necessary to promote competition, localism, or viewpoint diversity.
Background and question before the Court
In 2017, the FCC concluded that three of its ownership rules were no longer necessary to promote competition, localism, or viewpoint diversity.
The Third Circuit vacated the FCC’s reconsideration order, holding that the record did not support the agency’s conclusion that the rule changes would have minimal effect on minority and female ownership.
What each side argues
Petitioners
Petitioners argue that the FCC has created programs such as the incubator program and the eligible entity definition to give regulatory advantages to small entities.
Prometheus Radio Project
Prometheus contends that the FCC’s assessment of the impact on minority and female ownership relied on flawed data.
Ms. Deutsch
Ms. Deutsch argues that the FCC’s proposed rule changes would break past commitments to collect data and analyze impacts on minority and female ownership.
According to Ms. Deutsch, she notes that the FCC already collects relevant data in Form 323.
According to Ms. Deutsch, she points to a Free Press study indicating a drop in minority and female ownership after consolidation in the late 1990s.
What happened at oral argument
The case was heard before the Supreme Court at 10:00 a.m.
Justice Barrett asked whether the FCC’s goal of enhancing minority and female ownership differed from not harming them.
Justice Kavanaugh asked if an agency has discretion to interpret “public interest” to include effects on women and minority ownership.
Justice Thomas asked about the past lack of minority and female ownership considerations in structural ownership rules.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan questioned why the FCC’s limited data on impact was insufficient.
Justice Gorsuch asked about the Third Circuit’s retained jurisdiction over multiple rulemakings.
- [1] bb11e0bcb056b2752a93-r1-16b7409ca828bb55.pdf, p. 2
- [2] bb11e0bcb056b2752a93-r1-16b7409ca828bb55.pdf, p. 24
- [3] bb11e0bcb056b2752a93-r1-16b7409ca828bb55.pdf, p. 43
- [4] bb11e0bcb056b2752a93-r1-16b7409ca828bb55.pdf, p. 52
- [5] bb11e0bcb056b2752a93-r1-16b7409ca828bb55.pdf, p. 62
- [6] bb11e0bcb056b2752a93-r1-16b7409ca828bb55.pdf, p. 69
What the Court decided
The majority held that, based on the record, the FCC concluded that repealing or modifying the three rules was not likely to harm minority and female ownership.
Justice Thomas, in a concurrence, stated that the agency’s decision to repeal or modify the ownership rules fell outside the zone of reasonableness under the APA.
Why it matters
The case determines whether the FCC can relax ownership rules without harming minority and female ownership, affecting diversity in media ownership.
The decision addresses the FCC’s conclusion that the three ownership rules were no longer necessary to promote competition, localism, or viewpoint diversity.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 63cac4687dbfa90046ce-r1-f55df67f10c6598b.pdfopinion
- bb11e0bcb056b2752a93-r1-16b7409ca828bb55.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.