Document: 337 U.S. 265 69 S.Ct. 1097 93 L.Ed. 1353 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONv.WJR, THE GOODWILL STATION, Inc., et al. No. 495. Argued April 22, 1949. Decided June 6, Sol. Gen. Philip B. Perlman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. Louis G. Caldwell, respondents. [Argument of Counsel from page 266 intentionally omitted] Justice RUTLEDGE delivered the opinion Court. 1 Most broadly stated, important question presented by this case is extent to which due process law, as guaranteed Fifth Amendment, requires federal administrative tribunals accord right oral argument one claiming be adversely affected their action, more particularly upon questions law. Lest spacious form statement taken too sweeping and abstract pose a justiciable issue, we think specific context fact decision out has arisen must set forth. But before done should say that, understand Court Appeals' decision, it ruled that Amendment procedural an opportunity given 'on every law raised judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, including demurrer if on demurrer, except such may involved in interlocutory orders stay proceedings pendente lite, temporary injunctions like,' 174 F.2d 226, 233, basis remanded cause Federal Communications Commission argument. 2 Involved controversy are two radio stations Commission, petitioner here. One respondent WJR. It licensed 'Class I A Station,'1 broadcast day night Detroit, Michigan, frequency 760 kilocycles with strength 50 kilowatts. The other station intervenor, Coastal Plains (formerly Tarboro) Broadcasting Company. 3 Prior August 1946, Tarboro filed written application permit construct II Station'2 Tarboro, North Carolina. On date granted application. specified new was during at kilowatt kilocycles, previously had been used exclusively construction without notice WJR hearing participation Commission. 4 September 10 following, 'Petition reconsideration hearing.' This alleged proposed broadcasting range would 'objectionable interference' respondent's signal. Interference said anticipated principally certain areas Michigan where 'the field intensity averages 32 microvolts per meter less daytime hours,'3 but 'WJR provides best signal available'; limited interference 'during winter season' also expected within 'contours' 'much higher' than microvolts; unspecified thought likely neighboring states, though conceded 'a better provided stations.' 5 these allegations asked hold might made party or, alternative, postpone final action until conclusion then pending 'Clear Channel'4 proceeding. In proceeding, essentially legislative character, considering desirability changing its rules so allow increase strengths 500 alternative request WJR's fear grant prejudice possible future increased event clear channel proceeding modify Commission's facilitate 6 opposition petition reconsideration, asserting among grounds denial not operation 'would any normally protected service area Station WJR' neither nor proved 'any contours.' based theory under regulations license conferred no protection against outside contours regulations, those contours, hence legally insufficient face state heard 7 No response some three months later, December 17, denied opinion, rendered prior first disposed interference: 8 'Station Class I—A station. Under Rules Standards, 100 microvolt-permeter contour. sought is, according engineering affidavit accompanying petition, served microvolts-per-meter less, therefore contour.'5 9 As Appeals later treated ruling, i equivalent holding matter parlance did facts sufficient raise legal issue concerning (indirect) modification rights license. alternate application, concluding postponement newly authorized deference possi le 'future assignment facilities' serve public interest.' appealed Appeals. court agreed abused discretion refusing completion held, however, WRJ's claim objectionable closely divided vote, broad language quoted above,6 merits question, assured Accordingly, refused consider whether lower were 'normally contour' station, reversed 226. To importance thus determined, issued our writ certiorari. 336 917, 641. 11 At outset note complete agreement duty pointed out, vested 'supposititious eventualities' indeterminate time governing stations. Furthermore, regulation docket require (the Appeals) direct order shall cases.' And this, said, 'cannot do.' 231. 'Only Congress could confer priority.' v. Pottsville Co., 309 134, 145, 60 437, 443, 84 656. 12 Obviously most ruling required afford Plains' together grounding even broader inherent element all quasi-judicial, i.e., administrative, determinations arise matters involving stays like. 13 That scope misunderstood, expressly stated: 'A obviously sustained pleader's (or defense) dismissed * *.'7 Moreover, indicated matters, ('as well fact' when raised) 'not conditional ex parte view tribunal there substantial sufficiency complainant.' 240. 14 although urged both determine 'threshold' merits, namely, denying wrong, decide question. hearing, 'i.e., hear deciding sufficient' quite separate assuming truth, sufficient.' statutory scheme Act, 47 U.S.C.A. § 151 seq., thought, 'contemplates, review court, proper exercise primary jurisdiction, valid instance hearings properly conducted procedural—due process—standpoint.' Ibid. majority felt 'must remand directions Then after decides dismisses appeal will bring us correctness *.' Ibid.8 I. 15 Taken literal explicit import, Court's constitutional cannot sustained. So taken, apart excluded arising sort. regardless insubstantial; substantive nature asserted interest involved; procedure, relating particular interest, requiring allowing dispensed with; full available. 16 We do stop effects accepted, work vast varied system equally numerous diversified interests functioning; indeed many different types procedures dealing adjudicatively interests. enough conceived never cast rigid all-inclusive confinement. 17 contrary, term fixed invariable content.9 true reference respect elements process. For held situations essential fair Londoner Denver, 210 373, 28 8, 52 1103, others submitted writing sufficient. Morgan United States, 298 468, 481, 56 906, 911, 80 1288. See Johnson & Wimsatt Hazen, App.D.C. 151, 99 384; Mitchell Reichelderfer, 61 50, 57 416. 18 decisions cited show generalization Rather conflict rulings, effect, varies accordance differing circumstances, regulations. Certainly Constitution does cases only insubstantial frivolous ones, raised. Equally certainly left wide creating followed proceedings, conjunction. 19 Without sense discounting value wherever appropriate virtue constitutionally required, accept formula rested ruling. violence own former also, think, power devise disposition issues affecting widely varying kind.10 20 follows undertake generalize circumstances what matter, decisions, broadside indiscriminate rather case-to-case determination, through alone account differences affected, involved, prescribed them. Only judgment Congress, expressed pursuant ower procedures, into account. Any approach be, respect, highly abstract, largely vacuum. II. 21 Descending concrete setting provisions Act,11 unable conclude procedure determination raises affords semblance deficiency. 22 statute itself terms single situation only, initially examiner 409(a).12 provision however pertinence case, since assigned claimed arises 312(b). U.S.C. 312(b), section authorizes licenses 'if promote convenience, necessity,' 'That become holder outstanding have notified reasons therefor reasonable why issue.' 23 bearing meaning factors. 4(j) Act (47 154(j)), provides: 'The conduct manner conduce dispatch business ends justice. appear person attorney. *' factor consists National 319 239, 63 1035, 87 1374, so-called KOA case. 24 granting interfere licensee latter's afforded existing constitutes indirect From follow 312(b) gave 'have pages 245—246, 1038. KOA's party, 402(b)(2), 'person aggrieved whose affected' intervene participate it. 25 argument, considered. 26 presents states turn depends microvolt-per-meter contour 'outside license, forth fficient proceedings. And, again, respondent, answer turns Standards Good Engineering Practice Concerning Standard Broadcast Stations constitute part limitation license.13 27 Respondent insists limit measure interference'; necessarily argues addition degree alleges brings about (conversely interference) hence, entitles provides. purported refuse decide, things noted. contrary here, WHDH concededly created KOA.14 29 second place, majority's disclaimer here seems hardly consistent opinion's flat it, qualified not, dissenting judges merely stranger seeking come intervenor.15 viz., entitle standing another way phrasing modification, who entitled status vel non. 30 court's mandate, disclaimer. light disclaimer, such, rejected regarded inherently in, entical with, undetermined non, effect 312(b).16 31 limitations effect. Indeed Act's deprived due-process requirement Amendment. true, notwithstanding failure committed discretion, noted, 409(a). While 'shall final,' specify further include argument; modified issue' becomes final. 33 contrast between 409(a), intended 'reasonable cause' always Indeed, absence read general authorization 4(j), empowers 'conduct justice.' 34 wording mindful justice business, unrelated achieving justice, conducting fairly reasonably accommodate ends. Moreover use, channels communication 'but ownership thereof,' 301, moreover 'no construed create right, beyond terms, conditions, periods license.' 35 connection recalled often "public necessity' touchstone authority' permits licensing, criterion 'serves supple instrument expert body charged carry policy'. 137—138, 439, 'Necessarily, therefore, subordinate ascertaining licensing authority invoked—the inquiry, applications contemporaneously successively, parties allowed another's similar questions—were explicitly implication devising, long, course, observes basic requirements designed private Id., 138, 439. 36 need go again over ground covered others. Suffice seen fit provide 312(b); believing so. 'Reasonable cause,' comprehends determining permitted, matters.17 37 contend present consideration consideration. say, subject submission.18 38 Accordingly error decline stated presented, forms same substance, aggrieved. sequence identifies (1) (2) (3) appeal. 39 threefold determined. considered insubstantial, because they position, applied alleged, Standards. 40 being now decided statute, appeal, Appeals, uncomplicated constitutionality procedure. inconsistent opinion. 41 Reversed remanded. 42 MURPHY took Governing 3.22(a): Station' dominant operating o render secondary extended relatively long distances. Its free adjacent channels, interference, channel, designation Sec. 3.25 'Engineering Allocation'. kw (also see 3.25(a) limitation).' Fed.Reg. 2715. 3.22(b): operates (see 3.25) received class operate 0.25 kilowatts Whenever necessary use directional antenna means avoid stations, Allocation." 'field intensity,' relation signal's intensity' concept station's contour,' 5. 3.21(a): 'clear channel' cleared prima y portion areas.' offers succinct exposition technical terms: 'This normal clear. circumference line, measurement waves strength, intensity, measured (millionths volt) millivolts (thousandths meter, abbreviated uv/m mv/m, respectively. wave groundwave, surface earth extends greater distances depending earth, topography, obstacles noise steel structures. Generally speaking, distance '100 named imaginary line connects points strength.' 244. 'Commission's Standards' refers Stations. subheading Allocation,' 2(a) follows: Group allocated Section 3.25, paragraph (a) (including, inter alia, kilocycle WJR, 2716), duplicate nighttime permitted group limits States only) contour.' 2862. argued justices, Chief Groner Justices Clark Prettyman. By direction reargued Stephens, Edgerton, Clark, Wilbur K. Miller concurred. Prettyman Edgerton joined. statement, pervading related rulings technically 'raised demurrer' 'as demurrer,' motion dismiss formally like purpose, tribunal's sua sponte treatment 236. Both immediate reference, above, context, up Act' itself, wholly process, exceptions, Rather, construe incorporating reiterated conception identified 'hearing' 'oral argument' insofar concerned. confronted, far went, purely solely, bottom, import guarantees procedure; protects rights.' Labor Relations Board Mackay Radio Telegraph 304 333, 351, 58 904, 913, 82 1381. imposed guaranty (Fifth process) technical, necessary.' Inland Empire Dist. Council Millis, 325 697, 710, 65 1316, 1323, 89 1877. Bowles Willingham, 321 503, 519 521, 64 641, 649—650, 88 892; Opp Cotton Mills Administrator, 312 126, 152—153, 657, 524, 536, 85 624; Buttfield Stranahan, 192 470, 496—497, 349, 355, 48 525; Anniston Mfg. Co. Davis, 301 337, 342, 343, 816, 819, 81 1143; Ju Toy, 198 253, 263, 644, 646, 49 1040; Chicago, Q.R. 166 235, 581, 584, 979; Phillips Commissioner, 283 589, 596—597, 51 608, 611, 75 1289. example, alien's claims enter country, cf. rel. Shaughnessy, 806, 921, very citizen's entry reentry, Ng Fung Ho White, 259 276, 282, 492, 494, 66 938; Carmichael Delaney, Cir., 170 243—244; naturalization, Tutun 270 568, 576—578, 46 425, 426, 427, 70 738, just compensation land condemned, Roberts New York City, 295 264, 277—278, 55 689, 691, 79 1429; defend indictment crime. 19, 1934, c. 652, Stat. 1064, 1081, ff, 301. reads part: 'In arguments 2862, 1(2)(a). adopted 1939 formal informal hearings. Annual Report (1940) 37. words, 'normal contours' protection, There alleged. issuance interference. mere permissive intervener minority puts 'outsider'.' rejoinder was: (of majority) intervention how little he says his petition. (WJR's petition) basically intervene, proceeding.' 243. simply construing influenced throughout sank generalization's coloring. light, perhaps, bore consistency. coloration, showing party; and, unless invalid reasons, 'Any attorney.' nullify given. assures 'in attorney' found appropriate. Civil Procedure, rule 78, U.S.C.A., noted dissent part, District Courts: 'To expedite make submission motions brief statements support opposition.' Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 78. Similar Rule 7(2) Court, which, practice appellate leave initiate original 'Oral specially assigus

Category: 3