Goldwater v. Federal Communications Commission Et Al.

1964-10-28

Headline: Broadcast equal-time dispute: Court declines to review challenge over the President’s televised address, leaving broadcasters’ equal-time obligations and FCC interpretations unchanged days before the election.

Holding: The Court declined to take up the case and denied the petition for immediate review, leaving the lower-court outcome and the FCC interpretations undisturbed just days before the election.

Real World Impact:

Leaves lower-court and FCC practice unchanged days before the election
Keeps unresolved whether a president's speech triggers equal-time rules
Delays Supreme Court clarification of broadcasters’ duties during campaigns

Topics: broadcasting rules, equal airtime, campaign speech, Federal Communications Commission

Summary

Background

A presidential candidate, Barry M. Goldwater, asked the Supreme Court to review a dispute with the Federal Communications Commission about whether a full broadcast of the President’s October 18, 1964 address required broadcasters to give equal time to other candidates. Goldwater also asked for expedited argument because the election was only days away. The Court denied the petition for review and the request for fast consideration.

Reasoning

The central question was whether allowing the President to appear on network airtime counts as a “use” under Section 315(a) of the Federal Communications Act, which would require stations to give other qualified candidates comparable opportunities, or whether the address fit the Act’s exceptions for news coverage. The Supreme Court did not decide that substantive question because it declined to hear the case. In a dissent from the denial, Justices Goldberg and Black argued the statute plainly requires equal opportunities, said the President’s address did not fall into the listed news exceptions, and noted inconsistent FCC rulings on similar situations.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to take the case, there is no immediate Supreme Court clarification of when a candidate’s appearance triggers equal-time obligations. Broadcasters, the FCC, and candidates must continue to follow existing FCC interpretations and lower-court practice. The denial is procedural and not a final judgment on the meaning of Section 315(a), so the issue could be decided differently in the future.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices (Goldberg and Black) dissented from the denial and urged immediate argument, stressing the statute’s plain language, pointing to varied FCC holdings, and emphasizing the public interest in a quick resolution before the election.