Case Name: WHITEHURST v. GRIMES, Chief of Police, et al.
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1927-09-17
Citations: 21 F.2d 787
Docket Number: 
Parties: WHITEHURST v. GRIMES, Chief of Police, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 21
Pages: 787–787

Head Matter:
WHITEHURST v. GRIMES, Chief of Police, et al.
District Court, E. D. Kentucky.
September 17, 1927.
Paul M. Segal, of Denver, Colo., and James Park, of Lexington, Ky., for plaintiff.
R. L. Bronaugh, of Nicholasville, Ky., for defendants.

Opinion:
ANDREW M. J. COCHRAN, District Judge.
This suit is before me on defendants' motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity and that it does not state facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to the relief which he seeks.
The plaintiff is an amateur radio operator. He lives and operates an amateur radio station located in the city of Wilmore, a municipality of this state located in this district. This he has done since October, 1924. He has a license so to do from the United States. It was granted October 19,1925, for two years by tbo Secretary of Commerce, under the Act of August 13, .1912 (47 USCA § 51 — 60; Comp. St. § 10100-10109), and was extended Mareh 15, 1927, by the Federal Radio Commission, appointed under the Aet of February 23,1927 (47 USCA^ § 81-120), by General Order No. 1, until further orders therefrom. The designation of his station is 9 ALM.
On October 1, 1926, the defendant by its board of council passed an ordinance requiring all persons, firms, and corporation's operating a radio broadcasting station, either commercial or amateur, to pay a license tax therefor and providing a penalty for failure to do so. The tax provided-is not oil the property of tile radio operator, but on the business of radio broádeasting. Radio communications are all interstate. This- is so, though they may be intended only for intrastate transmission; and interstate transmission of such communications may be seriously affected by communications intended only for intrastate transmission. Such communications admit of and require a uniform system of regulation and control throughout the United States, and Congress has covered the field by appropriate legislation. It follows that the ordinance is void, as a regulation of interstate commerce.
The motion to dismiss is overruled.