United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-1288 September Term, 2021

FCC-20-84

Filed On: December 22, 2021

Michael Karr, d/b/a WVUX-LD,

Petitioner

v.

Federal Communications Commission and

United States of America,

Respondents

PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM AN ORDER OF THE 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE: Millett, Wilkins, and Jackson, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This petition for review of an order of the Federal Communications Commission

(“FCC”) was considered on the briefs filed by the parties and respondents’ appendix. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review be denied. The FCC

properly denied petitioner’s request for an order compelling satellite television providers

to carry his low power television station, WVUX-LD, on their satellite networks. 

Because WVUX-LD is a low power television station, it is not a “television broadcast

station” covered by the mandatory carriage obligations applicable to satellite television

providers under Section 338 of the Communications Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 338(a)(1)

(“Each satellite carrier providing . . . secondary transmissions to subscribers located

within the local market of a television broadcast station of a primary transmission made

by that station shall carry upon request the signals of all television broadcast stations

located within that local market . . . .”); 47 U.S.C. § 325(b)(7)(B) (television broadcast

station “does not include a low-power or translator television station”). Where the

statutory language is clear, the FCC and the court “must give effect to [Congress’]

unambiguously expressed intent.” Northpoint Tech., Ltd. v. FCC, 412 F.3d 145, 151

(D.C. Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, although

petitioner asserts that WVUX-LD is a “qualified low power station” for purposes of cable

television carriage obligations, see 47 U.S.C. § 534(a), he fails to explain why that

classification is relevant to the satellite television context.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-1288 September Term, 2021

Finally, petitioner’s conclusory arguments do not show that the differences in

mandatory carriage obligations for cable and satellite television providers under the

Communications Act violate his right to equal protection, cf. Abdelfattah v. U.S. Dep’t of

Homeland Sec., 787 F.3d 524, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (rejecting constitutional claim

where litigants “failed to put forth any argument or citation to authority supporting the

proposition” that their protected interests had been violated), and his low power station

is treated the same as all other low power stations with respect to satellite carriage. 

The court may not entertain petitioner’s other constitutional arguments, which he failed

to raise in the underlying proceedings before the FCC. See 47 U.S.C. § 405(a)

(precluding judicial review of “questions of fact or law upon which the Commission, or

designated authority within the Commission, has been afforded no opportunity to

pass”); Sioux Valley Rural Television, Inc. v. FCC, 349 F.3d 667, 676 n.5 (D.C. Cir.

2003) (“[A]n incomplete presentation of an issue does not suffice to place a matter

before the Commission such that it has been afforded a fair opportunity to pass on the

argument.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2