October Term 2011 · Docket 10-1293

Can the FCC fine broadcasters for fleeting nudity?

The FCC seeks to fine Fox for brief nudity. Fox argues the rule is vague and unfair.

Official caption
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    General Verrilli argued broadcasters accept public obligations with licenses.

    Mr. Phillips argued indecency is not the core regulatory deal.

    Mr. Waxman argued the government must steer clear of prohibited zones.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The FCC wants to enforce fines for fleeting nudity. Fox wants the fines struck down as vague.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 10, 2012.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The FCC wants to keep the fines for fleeting nudity.

Fox wants the court to strike down the fines.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The FCC argues broadcasters accept public obligations with licenses.

Fox argues the indecency rule is too vague to enforce.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked if excerpts from Hair could be televised.

Justice Kagan questioned why this specific condition is appropriate.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

Broadcasters face fines for brief nudity. Clear rules protect free speech and fair enforcement.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON