Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 884.0

529US3

Unit: $U60

[09-26-01 12:39:04] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 803 (2000)

809

Opinion of the Court

On March 7, 1996, Playboy obtained a temporary restrain-
ing order (TRO) enjoining the enforcement of § 505. 918
F. Supp. 813 (Del.), and brought this suit in a three-judge
District Court pursuant to § 561 of the Act, 110 Stat. 142,
note following 47 U. S. C. § 223 (1994 ed., Supp. III). Play-
boy sought a declaration that § 505 violates the Constitution
and an injunction prohibiting the law’s enforcement. The
District Court denied Playboy a preliminary injunction, 945
F. Supp. 772 (Del. 1996), and we summarily afﬁrmed, 520
U. S. 1141 (1997). The TRO was lifted, and the Federal
Communications Commission announced it would begin en-
forcing § 505 on May 18, 1997.
In re Implementation of Sec-
tion 505 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 12 FCC
Rcd. 5212, 5214 (1997).

When the statute became operative, most cable operators
had “no practical choice but to curtail [the targeted] pro-
gramming during the [regulated] sixteen hours or risk the
penalties imposed . . . if any audio or video signal bleed oc-
cur[red] during [those] times.” 30 F. Supp. 2d, at 711. The
majority of operators—“in one survey, 69%”—complied with
Ibid.
§ 505 by time channeling the targeted programmers.
Since “30 to 50% of all adult programming is viewed by
households prior to 10 p.m.,” the result was a signiﬁcant re-
striction of communication, with a corresponding reduction
in Playboy’s revenues.

Ibid.

In March 1998, the District Court held a full trial and con-
cluded that § 505 violates the First Amendment.
Id., at 702.
The District Court observed that § 505 imposed a content-
based restriction on speech.
It agreed that
the interests the statute advanced were compelling but con-
cluded the Government might further those interests in less
Id., at 717–720. One plausible, less re-
restrictive ways.
strictive alternative could be found in another section of the
Act: § 504, which requires a cable operator, “[u]pon request
by a cable service subscriber . . . without charge, [to] fully

Id., at 714–715.