City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc.
 | This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (August 2024) |
| City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 29, 1986 Decided June 2, 1986 | |
| Full case name | City of Los Angeles and Department of Water and Power v. Preferred Communications, Inc. |
| Citations | 476 U.S. 488 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 754 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir. 1985) |
| Subsequent | 13 F.3d 1327 (9th Cir. 1994) |
| Holding | |
| Case remanded to lower court to determine the legal extent of restricting cable franchising | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Powell, Stevens |
| Concurrence | Blackmun, joined by Marshall and O'Connor |
| Laws applied | |
| First Amendment | |
City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc., 476 U.S. 488 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that
taking the allegations in the complaint as true, [...] the City violated the First Amendment by refusing to issue a franchise to more than one cable television company when there was sufficient excess physical and economic capacity to accommodate more than one.[1]
Background
[edit]In 1983 the City of Los Angeles denied a franchise or license (including the opportunity to compete for one) to Preferred Communications, Inc., a firm founded by Carl and Clinton Galloway[2] founded as Universal Cable Systems, Inc.[citation needed]
Preferred Communications would file suit against the city seeking redress for the violation of a Federal and State Constitutional, as well as Civil, right guaranteed to all American Citizens and Corporate Bodies[3]
The case, originating in United States District Court for the Central District of California, would reach the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,[4] which reversed the district court with respect to the First Amendment argument, but affirmed her dismissal of the Anti Trust allegations made against city officials on the grounds that such officials possessed state immunity or qualified immunity. Subsequent to this reversal, the city appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the court of appeals[5] saying "The complaint should not have been dismissed. The activities which respondent seeks to engage in plainly implicates first amendment interests" and, that "Taking the allegations in the complaint as true, ... the well-pleaded facts of the complaint constitute a cognizable [first amendment violation.]"[6]
The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, meaning that the factual allegations in the complaint, if true, would not give Preferred Communications a right to relief from the city.
The case originated in United States District Court for the Central District of California. The award of nominal damages in addition to the reluctant if much delayed striking down of the "one area, one operator" policy exercised by the city, was considered to be a "preamble to breakup of local cable franchising" schemes which did not serve the public interest in the 1980s and 90s.[7]
At the heart of the matter was the city's franchising scheme, which sold rights to provide cable service to the "highest bidder", pursuant a city ordinance. The city maintained that the franchise for the South Central district was "non-exclusive" however proceeded to bar entry from new applicants, including Preferred Communications Inc.[8]
The First Amendment became relevant for according to plaintiffs, the ability to transmit ideas (through the cable medium) constituted speech, and the right of way being denied belonged to the public and not one single, exclusive and private interest.
Supreme Court
[edit]The Supreme Court and ultimately two lower courts found that
- a city's right of way—to the extent it constitutes a channel for speech—may not be granted to one party exclusively, a policy known as "one area, one operator",[9] and
- the City of Los Angeles is required to act in accordance with the United States Constitution.
The Supreme Court remanded the case for further factual consideration by the district court.[10]
The City of Los Angeles had conceivably deprived respondent Preferred Communication Inc., from exercising its rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America when it refused Preferred access to the electric lines and poles on account that Preferred did not participate in an auction held by the city awarding such access to the "highest bidder."[11]
References
[edit]- ^ Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (2024).
- ^ Bunting, Glenn F. (March 25, 1990). "Bishop Brookins' Ties to Cable Franchise Detailed". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
- ^ Hazlett, Thomas W. (June 1, 1991). "Pain and Cable". Reason.com. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
- ^ "City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications (1986)". The Free Speech Center. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
- ^ Title VII—Employee Retirement Plans—Unequal Contribution Requirements as Constituting Unlawful Discrimination on the Basis of Sex—Manhart v. City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power, 553 F.2d 581 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. granted, 98 S. Ct. 51 (1977) |
- ^ "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | United States Courts". www.uscourts.gov. Retrieved July 27, 2024.
- ^ Schildause, Sol. "Preamble to the Breakup of Local Cable Franchising".
- ^ "City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications (1986)". The Free Speech Center. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
- ^ Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, 476 U.S. 488 (1986).
- ^ Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, 476 U.S. 488 (1986).
- ^ Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, 476 U.S. 488 (1986).
Further reading
[edit]- The First Amendment and Cable television: Preferred Communications, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1765&context=tlr Digital Commons: Tulsa Law Review
External links
[edit]Text of City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc., 476 U.S. 488 (1986) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)