Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

could not substitute “governmental regulation” for the “cru-
cial process” of editorial choice.  Id., at 258. 

Next  up  was  Pacific  Gas  &  Elec.  Co.  v.  Public  Util. 
Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1 (1986) (PG&E), which the Court 
thought to follow naturally from Tornillo.  See 475 U. S., at 
9–12  (plurality  opinion);  id.,  at  21  (Burger,  C. J.,  concur-
ring).  A private utility in California regularly put a news-
letter in its billing envelopes expressing its views of energy 
policy.  The  State  directed  it  to  include  as  well  material 
from a consumer-advocacy group giving a different perspec-
tive.  The utility objected, and the Court held again that the
interest in “offer[ing] the public a greater variety of views”
could not justify the regulation.  Id., at 12.  California was 
compelling the utility (as Florida had compelled a newspa-
per) “to carry speech with which it disagreed” and thus to 
“alter its own message.”  Id., at 11, n. 7, 16. 

In  Turner  Broadcasting  System,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  512  U. S. 
622  (1994)  (Turner  I ),  the  Court  further  underscored  the
constitutional protection given to editorial choice.  At issue 
were federal “must-carry” rules, requiring cable operators 
to  allocate  some  of  their  channels  to  local  broadcast  sta-
tions.  The Court had no doubt that the First Amendment 
was implicated, because the operators were engaging in ex-
pressive activity.  They were, the Court explained, “exercis-
ing editorial discretion over which stations or programs to 
include  in  [their]  repertoire.”  Id.,  at  636.    And  the  rules 
“interfere[d]” with that discretion by forcing the operators 
to carry stations they would not otherwise have chosen.  Id., 
at  643–644.  In  a  later  decision,  the  Court  ruled  that  the 
regulation  survived  First  Amendment  review  because  it 
was necessary to prevent the demise of local broadcasting.
See  Turner  Broadcasting  System,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  520  U. S. 
180, 185, 189–190 (1997) (Turner II ); see infra, at 28, n. 10. 
But for purposes of today’s cases, the takeaway of Turner is 
this holding: A private party’s collection of third-party con-
tent into a single speech product (the operators’ “repertoire”