Court Opinion

ID: 9462197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:34:17.319126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:27.170764
License: Public Domain

TRASK, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
With deference it is submitted that the majority was in error in reaching the merits of the American Civil Liberties *1352Union’s petition for review. It seems apparent that the ACLU has no standing to bring this suit and that the dispute between the ACLU and the FCC is not now ripe for review.
I. Standing
The court reasons that this is a case in which a determination of the merits is necessary in order to decide whether there is standing, and that therefore the standing question need not be directly confronted. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975), precludes such an approach. The Supreme Court there stated: “. standing in no way depends on the merits of the plaintiff’s contention that particular conduct is illegal . . . .” At 500, 95 S.Ct. at 2206. Later, the Court stated: “. . . reviewing courts must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party.” 422 U.S. at 501, 95 S.Ct. at 2206. The Court went on to assume for purposes of determining standing that, on a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs in the case before it had proved that the local government unit had intentionally and unconstitutionally excluded racial and ethnic minorities from the community by restrictive zoning and other housing related regulations. The Court then proceeded to determine whether the individual plaintiff had standing. The majority’s avoidance of the standing issue in the instant case is erroneous.
In this case the proceedings come to us for review upon a different record. There is no complaint containing allegations of fact which must be taken as true for the purpose of ruling on a motion to dismiss. The fact that no pleadings exist upon which a basis for standing may be examined does not, however, eliminate appellant’s duty to otherwise establish it, nor justify our consideration of the merits in order to determine the threshold question.
An examination of the proceedings to date and of the interests of the ACLU and its members reveals that the ACLU has no standing. This proceeding had its origins in a Notice of Rule Making issued by the FCC in Docket 18373, adopted November 6, 1968. 33 Fed.Reg. 17855 (1968). The initial notice was followed by subsequent notices all eventually focusing on Docket 18397.1 Rule making is not a process necessarily set in motion by any individualized grievance or adversary confrontation, but by a general need for guidelines to operate a system or an industry. The stated purpose of the rule making procedure was to make inquiry into the long-range development of cable television and to explore:
“ ‘. . . [H]ow best to obtain, consistent with the public interest standard of the Communications Act, the full benefits of developing communications technology for the public, with particular immediate reference to CATV technology and potential services . . . 36 FCC 2d 143, 144 (1972).
The massive Cable Television Report and Order of the FCC together with its Reconsideration of Cable Television Report and Order covers 335 pages including concurring and dissenting views of the Commissioners. More than 3 years time went into the report and order during which the FCC gathered data, solicited views, heard argument, evaluated studies, examined alternatives and held final discussions. 36 FCC 2d at 327 ¶ 2. Representative broadcast2 and cable tel*1353evision3 interests were participants in the hearings. Program suppliers, such as MCA, Inc. and Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, asserting copyright views, and groups not directly connected with the industry such as ACLU were also participants pursuant to the public notice.
No complaint is made by the ACLU that it was denied the right to a hearing or an opportunity to submit its views before the FCC as was the case in Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 328, 359 F.2d 994 (1966). Its response to the question of standing before this court is stated in its reply brief at page 2 as follows:
“The ACLU filed this Petition for Review in an attempt (1) to seek reversal of the Commission’s decision declining to apply Title II of the Federal Communications Act (dealing with common carriers) to the access bandwidth of cable television, and (2) to procure reversal of the Commission’s decision below permitting cable television entrepreneurs to use more than one channel for their own programming. The importance of these issues to the ACLU lay not only in the ACLU’s long-standing concern for the First Amendment interests in maximizing the diversity of television programming sources, but also in the fact that significant numbers of the ACLU’s more than 250,000 members are themselves cable television viewers and/or subscribers. These ACLU members are, therefore, directly and adversely affected by the specific regulations of which the ACLU seeks review.” (Footnote omitted.)
Petitioner does not tell us how the failure of the Commission to apply common carrier status and regulations to the access bandwidth of cable television has caused or will cause it or its members to be “aggrieved” or “injured in fact.” It does not charge that the programming of CATV under the order will be racially discriminatory, will be offensive to viewers or will restrict full and fair expression of views, or that the action of the Commission is arbitrary or capricious. It simply disagrees with the regulatory policies developed by the rule making body, particularly with how best to “maximize the diversity of television program sources.”
Specifically, on the first issue, that the FCC must regulate CATV access channels as common carriers under Title II of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., the ACLU offers four arguments. The first is that the FCC regulations contain no prohibition against the cable operator’s arbitrary discrimination in favor of some educational authorities against others. The reason why the rule makes public access, governmental access and leased access channels available on a “first come, nondiscriminatory” basis but does not use the quoted language with reference to educational channels, does not appear. There is, however, certainly nothing in any of the language of the regulations to indicate that discrimination is invited or anticipated on the educational channels. In fact, two years after adoption of the rules the Commission promulgated “Clarification of the Cable Television Rules,” 46 FCC 2d 176 (1974). The Commission said:
“Our educational access channel rules were designed to promote the use of that channel by educational authorities in the community. Much was claimed in the original dockets which led to the adoption of this rule about the potential for educational channels on cable. Little has developed. In retrospect, it appears that our limitation of one free educational access channel was wise. Designating vast channel capacity for education only to see it lie fallow serves no purpose.”
“Our concept of ‘educational authority’ was not meant to restrict the use of this channel to the local public *1354school board. Any school, college, or university, public or private, formal or informal, should have the opportunity to air programming on this channel.
The single exception would apply to commercial educational enterprises such as beauty schools, computer schools, etc.
“Any bona fide educational interest • should have access to the educational channel. . . . ” 46 FCC 2d at 185.
Thus the policy of the Commission is certainly not phrased in terms of discrimination; every indication is exactly the opposite. In any event, petitioner does not assert any existing or proposed future discrimination against a school or school authority.
The second reason argued by the ACLU for compelling common carrier status for cable television operators is that 47 U.S.C. § 205(a) provides for FCC regulation of charges by any “carriers” as defined by 47 U.S.C. §§ 152, 153(h). However, argues petitioner, the FCC has expressly authorized cable system owners to charge what they please for the use of leased access channels. First of all, reliance upon the language of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (of which 47 U.S.C. § 205(a) is a part) to conclude that cable television systems are common carriers, is misplaced. The “carriers” to which those provisions apply, 47 U.S.C. §§ 152, 153(h), have not been determined to include cable television, as the majority points out. Again, however, the argument is addressed to a very abstract question. Not one of petitioner members, as a viewer or potential operator, is alleged to be endangered by charges which might prevail under the FCC order. The charges under a system of open competition could be more or less than under a regulated monopoly system.
A third argument to support common carrier status is that a “no regulation” system does not ensure that leased access channels will be available to independent programmers over periods of sufficient duration to justify the investment. But no evidence is produced to show that the possible danger will ever become a reality. Again we talk in terms of policy, not in terms of persons aggrieved. In its Report and Order the Commission said:
“The question of what regulations we should impose at this time is most difficult. • Our judgments on how these access services will evolve are at best intuitive. We believe that the best course is to proceed with only minimal regulation in order to obtain experience. We emphasize, therefore, that the regulatory pattern is' interim in nature — that we may alter the program as we gain the necessary insights.” 36 FCC 2d 143, 194 (1972).
Petitioner suggests no actual controversy that the existing rule has engendered.
The final argument in support of the need for common carrier regulation is that there is nothing in the current rules to ensure that CATV owners will increase their channel capacity to meet growing demand as would be the case were the access bandwidths regulated as common carriers. But as petitioner’s brief points out, Petitioner’s Brief at 30— 31, there is an expansion procedure to increase the number of available channels. 47 C.F.R. § 76.251(a)(8). Petitioner argues simply that it is not enough. Again, no actual or threatened injury is alleged. The argument made is that petitioner’s approach is better.
Thus, the first issue submitted, i. e., that the order of the FCC is “inconsistent with the status of cable television’s access bandwidth as a common carrier,” Petitioner’s Brief at 42, does not present a case or controversy in the constitutional sense under Article III. Warth v. Seldin, 422 at 498-501, 95 S.Ct. 2197 (1975). The petitioner has failed to assert that as an entity it has suffered “some threatened or actual injury . . . Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973), or that any of its members are thus af*1355fected. Warth v. Seldin, supra at 498-499, 95 S.Ct. 2197.4
The second challenged policy of the FCC was its order authorizing origination cablecasting on more than one designated channel. 47 C.F.R. § 76.201(a) (repealed). Petitioners first acknowledge that the Court in United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 92 S.Ct. 1860, 32 L.Ed.2d 390 (1972), upheld the origination broadcasting rule about which petitioners complain. Then they cautiously admit that the rule is “currently under review by the Commission,” but state that even if the rule is repealed it would leave the cable operators with the prerogative to engage in origination broadcasting “at their discretion.” Petitioner’s Brief at 35-36. They then conclude that even this prerogative “contravenes both the Communications Act and the free speech provision of the First Amendment.” Id. at 36. The ACLU provides no authority for this argument. Petitioner has not suggested that any operator is now engaging in the practice of originating broadcasts on more than one channel or plans to do so, or, that if done, just how it would violate anyone’s first amendment rights.5
The issue on review has become moot since the FCC has repealed the mandatory origination rule about which complaint is made,6 and the ACLU’s argument that the FCC should have prohibited origination broadcasting by CATV owners on more than one station fails for lack of showing of ordinary standing criteria.
II. Ripeness
An additional ground for dismissing this case is the evident lack of ripeness of the controversy. In Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515, 8 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967), *1356the Supreme Court, discussing the ripeness doctrine, stated:
“. . .its basic rationale is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties. The problem is best seen in a twofold aspect, requiring us to evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.”
In Toilet Goods Assn. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 158, 87 S.Ct. 1520, 18 L.Ed.2d 697 (1967), the Court applied this standard to a formally promulgated regulation of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that permitted the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to suspend “certification service” to manufacturers of food additives who refused to allow government inspectors to enter their plants. Without certification an additive was deemed unsafe. Plaintiffs challenged the regulation in the district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and claiming that the regulation was in excess of the Secretary’s authority. The Court found that the issue would be more readily resolved in the context of an enforcement proceeding rather than the generalized challenge before it. It further ruled that the adverse effect on the plaintiffs was “minimal” because the plaintiffs’ primary activity, its day-to-day business, would not be affected by the regulation, and because the harm of going through an enforcement proceeding was not great.
On the facts of this case judicial resolution of the Commission’s authority to promulgate the CATV regulations in question would be greatly aided by the facts of a particular dispute. If a CATV owner refuses to provide channel access to an independent program producer at some time in the future, ACLU members who view CATV programs could claim that they have been denied the full range of program variety that common carrier regulation and a rule preventing origination broadcasting by CATV owners on more than one channel would entitle them to. In this context the FCC’s broad discretion over the choice of regulatory forms would be more readily reviewable in the light of the statute’s strictures on common carriers and the alleged first amendment problems in multiple origination by CATV owners. It might be that a case would clearly present a conflict that would illuminate the competing interests and considerations.
It is similarly very difficult to see any “irremedial adverse consequences,” Toilet Goods Assn., supra at 164, 87 S.Ct. 1520, that would flow from this court’s declining to review the regulations at this time. The ACLU has not claimed that any of the possible injuries have actually occurred. ACLU member/viewers do not now suffer from not seeing programs that would otherwise have been broadcast had the FCC chosen to regulate differently. If their fear that this will be the case actually develops they can seek judicial review then.
The only adverse consequence the ACLU might suffer from this court’s declining to review the regulations at this time would be that the CATV channel access industry will develop in such a way that the interests the ACLU seeks to vindicate — maximization of the sources of programs and broadcasts— would be seriously undermined. It is difficult to see this as a realistic threat. The Commission is not allocating a scarce resource that once divided will be difficult to undo without huge disruptive effects on the industry and on other parties. The channel capacity of a CATV system is for all intents and purposes an unlimited one. Should it be determined at some future time that a CATV owner has refused access to a potential broadcaster and that this is impermissible under the Act, the CATV owner can be ordered to provide more channels for leased access use; the costs to the CATV *1357owner and to the CATV industry would be negligible to meet any such new requirement. The court should decline to review the regulations because the controversy is not yet ripe.7

. Notice-of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry in Docket 18397, 15 FCC2d 417, 33 Fed.Reg. 19028 (1968); Notice of Proposed Rule Making in Docket 18416, 34 Fed.Reg. 872 (1968); Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in Docket 18397, 22 FCC2d 603, 34 Fed. Reg. 7981 (1969); Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in Docket 18397-A, 24 FCC2d 580, 35 Fed.Reg. 11045 (1970).

. National Association of Broadcasters, Columbia Broadcasting System, National Broadcasting System and other network and individual interests.

. The National Cable Television Association and other CATV interests and operators.

. In addition, it is difficult to discern how the agency review provisions can be relied upon to grant standing to those in petitioner’s position or those whom petitioner claims to represent. The viewer members do not fall within the holding of Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, supra. There a regional television operator was charged with having engaged in racially discriminatory programming and overemphasis of commercials, all of which was offensive to its viewers. Here there is simply a difference of opinion as to how best to achieve industry-wide goals.
28 U.S.C. § 2344 which applies to review of final orders of the FCC provides in part that “Any party aggrieved by the final order may file a petition to review the order in the court of appeals . . . .”
Petitioner is not “aggrieved” in any explicated sense even though it participated in the proceedings before the FCC and undertook there to urge that common carrier regulation would better serve the public than limited free competition. The “party aggrieved” rule governing review of FCC actions cannot apply unless the bare fact that the ACLU disagrees with the FCC’s adoption of a limited free enterprise type of regulation rather than the common carrier type sought by ACLU creates a grievance within the rules of standing. Should it do so it simply leads to the result that the ultimate decision upon policy in rule making is shifted to the courts for final determination rather than the decision remaining with the Commission which was delegated that authority by act of Congress. In the absence of a cause of action based upon Article Ill’s minimum requirements this should not be so.
In fact, CATV licenses are not open on a completely free basis to anyone who might choose to develop an outlet. Section 76.11 of the Order, 36 FCC 2d at 217, 47 C.F.R. § 76.11, provides that no cable television system shall commence operations or add a television broadcast signal to existing operations unless it receives a certificate of compliance from the Commission. Thereafter rather detailed rules state the requirements of the application and provide for public notice and for objections to applications. 36 FCC 2d at 217-19, 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.11-76.17.
Preliminary views of the FCC appeared to favor at least partial common carrier service, 20 FCC 2d 201, 202 ¶ 3 (1969), yet the Commission withheld final decision on the issue until further study, id. at 207 ¶[ 16. See 23 FCC 2d 825, 827 ¶[ 5 (1970).

. To confound the confusion of its reasoning petitioner argues, Petitioner’s Brief at 37, that the origination requirement of the now repealed regulation implemented the national communications policy of maximizing diversity in the sources of programming, citing Midwest Video Corp., supra at 668 n. 27, but that a cable operator’s prerogative to engage in multi-channel origination cablecasting does not serve this policy.

. 39 Fed.Reg. 43302, 43310 (1974).

. There is no significance to the fact that the present case is upon review of a rule making procedure rather than an adjudicatory proceeding. The ripeness doctrine applies to review of rules as well as to specific adjudications. Bristol-Meyers Co. v. FTC, 138 U.S. App.D.C. 22, 424 F.2d 935, 940 (1970) (dictum), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 824, 91 S.Ct. 46, 27 L.Ed.2d 52 (1970). See Davis v. Ichord, 143 U.S.App.D.C. 183, 442 F.2d 1207, 1219-20 (1970) (Levanthal, J., concurring).