Document: 358 U.S. 334 79 S.Ct. 457 3 L.Ed.2d 354 UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,v.RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA and National Broadcasting Company, Inc. No. 54. Argued Dec. 8, 1958. Decided Feb. 24, 1959. Mr. Sol. Gen. J. Lee Rankin, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Bernard G. Segal, Philadelphia, Pa., appellees. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion Court. 1 Appellees, Radio Corporation America are defendants in this civil antitrust action brought by Government under § 4 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 4, U.S.C.A. 4. After holding a preliminary hearing on three appellees' affirmative defenses to that action, federal district judge dismissed complaint. 158 F.Supp. 333. The appealed directly Court Expediting 29, 29. principal question presented is whether approval Federal Communications Commission agreement exchange their Cleveland television station one Philadelphia bars independent which attacks as being furtherance conspiracy violate laws. 2 Government's complaint generally alleged following facts. In 1954, Company (NBC), wholly owned subsidiary (RCA), five very high frequency (VHF) stations. stations were located market areas: New York, country's largest market; Chicago, second; Los Angeles, third; Cleveland, tenth; Washington eleventh. According allegations, March NBC RCA originated continuing acquire eight areas country. Since fourth area, acquisition or would achieve goal conspiracy.1 One station, WPTZ, was Westinghouse Company. This Westinghouse-owned Boston affiliated with network. addition, desired affiliation be acquired Pittsburgh. order force its NBC's it threatened loss network stations, withhold from Pittsburgh acquired. also any new VHF UHF (ultra frequency) might acquire. By thus using leverage network, have forced agree contract consideration. Under terms while plus million dollars. asked declared violative 1, appellees divested such assets District deemed appropriate, 'such other additional relief may proper' awarded, recover costs suit. 5 Appellees' arose out fact had been approved Commission.2 FCC required 310(b) Act 1934, 48 Stat. 1086, amended, 66 716, 47 310(b), 310(b). Section, filed applications setting forth transaction reasons requesting exchange. instituted proceedings determine met statutory requirements 310, 'public interest, convenience, necessity' served. They not adversary proceedings. extensive investigation transaction, still satisfied meet standards, and, over dissents, issued letters seeking information various subjects, including problems, 309(b) Act. receiving answers letters, Commission, without hearing, December 21, 1955, granted application stations.3 6 It stipulated below passing upon application, all before has now made basis further appears during Department informed evidence FCC's possession. stipulated, we assume, decided issues relative laws it, right request 309(b), file protest 309(c), seek rehearing 405, judicial review decision 402(b). See Far East Conference v. United States, 342 570, 576, 72 492, 495, 96 L.Ed. 576; ex rel. Chapman Power Comm., 345 153, 155, 156, 73 609, 611 612, 97 918. took none these actions. Accordingly, January 22, 1956, after period could sought expired, consummated according contract. did present until ten months later. 7 Against background, assert authority pass questions presented, case, regulatory scheme so displaced primary jurisdiction license result attack must direct grant. Relying premise, they then contend only method available redressing grievances intervene proceedings; since not, determined adversely when approved, barred principles collateral estoppel res judicata; case long delay between filing suit because laches. I. 8 Whether contentions prevail depends substantially extent Congress authorized questions, turn requires examination relevant legislative history. Two sections 1064, 151 et seq., deal specifically considerations, Sections 311 313: 9 'Sec. 311. hereby directed refuse and/or permit hereinafter construction person (or indirectly controlled person) whose revoked court section 313. * 10 All States relating unlawful restraints monopolies combinations, contracts, agreements restraint trade applicable manufacture sale radio apparatus devices entering into affecting interstate foreign commerce communications. Whenever suit, proceeding, criminal, provisions said enforce findings orders Trade governmental agency respect matters law act, licensee shall found guilty violation them, court, addition penalties imposed laws, adjudge, order, decree shall, date judgment becomes finally effective fix, rights thereupon cease: Provided, however, That same appeal provided decrees judgments court.' 11 These taken 1927.4 appear bill drafted Congressman White Maine, H.R. 5589, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. What appeared third paragraph 2(C)5 bill, what s 313 2(G).6 hearings House Committee, Reid Illinois Judge Davis, Commerce representative, Secretary Commerce7 discretion 2(C) (now 311) party believed violating colloquy ensued:8 12 Davis. 'He no act.' 13 Reid. 'They first; idea?' 14 White. 'Yes. words, I tried get away placing secretary determination character. involves, course, facts; knowledge irequires an facts, exercise powers, if you leave his discretion, lift secretary.' Later on, grounds revoke licenses 2(F) 312). mentioned ground, observed:9 'Yes; but do include combinations contracts trade. covered.' 16 'No; section.' 17 Davis Tennessee. 'Those covered 'G' 313).' 18 'That left courts that.' 19 failure provision permitting refusal violations absence caused insert lengthy Minority Report 9108, old 5589 reintroduced White.10 Consequently, (then numbered 9971) reached floor House, attempted number amendments strengthened antitrusts aspects bill. 67 Cong.Rec. 5484, 5485. defeated, amendment company 'found commission unlawfully monopolizing' communication. (Emphasis supplied.) Cong. Rec. 5501—5504, 5555. 20 Thus, Senate consideration version there 'anything providing applicant acting controls monopoly question,' Senator Dill who charge Senate, replied:11 21 'The provides anybody convicted he denied license; does attempt make certain conditions constitute monopoly; rather leaves 22 adjourned at session. At next session, Committee reported bills became 1927, despite vigorous unsuccessful opposition see, e.g., 68 2577, Pittman Nevada Senate. See, 3032, 3034. 23 Only change those two incorporated Section modified merely authorize than require revocation broadcaster ordered revoked, 1086. respects §§ identical with, purpose as, Act.12 24 While history compels conclusion intended such, equally clear retained irrespective action. Thus 311, originally enacted read follows: 25 313, adjudged monopolizing attempting monopolize, communication, indirectly, through control apparatus, exclusive traffic arrangements, means, unfair methods competition. granting estop aggrieved proceeding against competition trade, instituting dissolution corporation.' 26 Appellees avoid italicized sentence ways. First, point repeal 1952 716. occasioned objections industry broadcasters subject refusals even part see fit S.Rep. 142, 82d 9. accordingly repealed first comma, sentence. apparently considered inherent challenge transactions carefully noted curtail right:13 27 'To conference substitute will eliminate last sentence, quoted above, committee feel legal significance. view members surplusage omitting power private proceed curtailed affected way.' 28 reliance clearly misplaced. 29 Second, urge narrow scope; insure prosecuting subsequent giving rise small part. argue actions Packaged Programs Co., Cir., 255 F.2d 708. But language cannot naturally manner, take persuasive restrict application. history, nor cases holding. 30 reveals given decide prevent enforcement courts. II. 31 We reach whether, over-all invocation doctrine. doctrine (later Justice) Texas & Pacific R. Co. Abilene Cotton Oil 204 426, 350, 51 553. grounded necessity administrative uniformity, particular maintenance uniform rates shippers.14 A second reason suggested Brandeis Great Northern Merchants Elevator 259 285, 291, 42 477, 479, 943, where pointed need skill 'commonly body experts' handling 'intricate facts' of, transportation industry. 32 applicability allegedly particularly involving fully regulated industries reasonable appropriate commission, applicable.15 Arctic 228 87, 33 443, 57 742; Keogh Chicago N.W.R. 260 43 47, 183; Navigation Cunard S.S. 284 474, 52 247, 76 408; State Georgia Pennsylvania 324 439, 65 89 1051; 576. time, apply dissolving invalid set, interference rate structures scheme.16 supra; supra. decisions sometimes emphasized uniformity rates, supra, times experience distilling facts complex foundation later explained Maritime Board Isbrandtsen 356 481, 497—499, 78 851, 861—862, 926. involved, common carriers rail water. published tariff, tariff resonable. Free controls. Court's concern expert in, responsible for, administering should opportunity within special competence aid resolving policy patterns cohesive whole. some resolution necessary free placed beside fixed obvious. Cf. McLean Trucking 321 67, 64 370, 88 544. consistently held practices thereto challenged agencies consider reasonableness light many factors violations, otherwise sporadic disrupt agency's delicate scheme, throw existing balance. 34 industry, different way. difference controlling. broadcasters, Allen B. Dumont Laboratories Carroll, 184 included definition 3(h) 153(h), telephone telegraph companies. controls, regulation, Title II 201—222, apply.17 Television remain set own advertising rates. As Comm. Sanders Bros. Station, 309 470, 60 693, 697, 84 869: 35 'In contradistinction communication telegraph, recognizes carrier activity regulates analogy regulation Interstate dealt such. field broadcasting dealing demonstrate abandoned principle done railroads. *' pervasive balance, can work mischief. justification disappears.18 36 illustrate analysis. like unregulated business concerns, desirability Like run afoul Their varied obtain agency. scope limited standard, necessity.' generally, Nelson 289 266, 53 627, 77 1166; Pottsville 134, 437, 656; Communications, 346 86, 998, 1470. monetary parties, ability parties serve public. Even approval, complete sound dictated. every sense, faced solely (as opposed coercion), save interest' served No involved. 37 imply determining proposed broadcaster, contrary.19 319 190, 222—224, 63 997, 1011—1013, 87 1344. Moreover, find considerations alone keep standard met, publisher sole newspaper area applies facilities, which, granted, give him area's major media mass 98 7399; Mansfield Journal 86 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 107, 109, 180 28, 33, 34. III. 38 fall weight questions. collaterally estopped licensing, 'whether earlier litigation representative represent interests final adjudication issue controversy.' Sunshine Anthracite Coal Adkins, 310 381, 403, 907, 917, 1263. controversy public violated. estoppel. Res judicata more inapposite. 39 Similarly, laches unless sort duty go forward issues, either enter grant.20 40 dismissing reversed remanded inconsistent opinion. 41 ordered. Judgment HARLAN concurs result, believing, understands 'I' hold, binding involved Commission's exempt pro tanto dispositive appeal. 44 FRANKFURTER DOUGLAS case. regulations, CFR, 1958, 3.636, relinquished. 2793, Public Notice 27067, 1955. Commissioner Bartley dissented urging theretofore revealed raised 'serious possible legality competitive followed obtaining dominance broadcast markets.' He 'a substantial once grants iits transfers, Clayton (viz. U.S.C.Section (15 18)) taking event concluded involved.' Commissioner.) Doerfer, joined Mack, responded unnecessary hold concluded, however: 'It difficult how effectively preclude examining companies.' 1162. H.R.Conf.Rep. 1918, 73d 2d 49. person, firm, company, corporation, thereof, monopolize means. corporation trade.' 'All phrased, administered primarily Commerce. Hearings Merchant Marine Fisheries 27. Id., H.R.Rep. 404, 6, 16, 23. 12507. 2426, 19. recently nature Western 352 59, 63—64, 161, 164—165, 126: jurisdiction, rule requiring exhaustion remedies, concerned promoting proper relationships charged duties. 'Exhaustion' claim cognizable instance alone; withheld process course. 'Primary jurisdiction,' hand, courts, comes play whenever body; suspended pending referral views.' Administrative Law Treatise, 19.05, 19.06; Jaffe, Primary Jurisdiction Reconsidered: Anti-Trust Laws, 102 U. Pa.L.Rev. 577; Schwartz, Legal Restriction Competition Regulated Industries: An Abdication Judicial Responsibility, Harv.L.Rev. 436; von Mehren, Antitrust Laws Doctrine Jurisdiction, 929. because, words page 49, '* combination fix nondiscriminatory illegal.' position shippers entitled conspiracy, though lowest reasonable. risk future filings uppermost limits zone too great, damage conspiratorial presumed flow. Of permitted coverage cooperatively, conspiracy. II, furnish communications service just 201. Such FCC, filed, 203. lawfulness 204, itself rate, 205. 49 seq.; 46 817, 817. companies exempted 221(a) 222(c)(1). 5(11), 5b(9), 5b(9) 814, 814. exemptions are, review, 851. re-enforced disavowal desire foreclose aimed licensed. both below, Supplemental Memorandum Court, 8: 'Concurrent designate interest arising mean, deny exist, involve violated, therefore forestall subsequently bringing challenging transactions.' Nor purposes litigation, years. Uniform Policy Violation Applicants Docket 9572 (1950), Pike Fischer, Regulation, Part III, 91:495; Since, observed, rests 'body experts,' (259 479) odd impose experts relevance skill. 9572, 91:495. note expressly notice proceeding. Compare 222(c)(1) carriers, makes consolidations mergers Attorney General prior approval.

Category: 7