td colspan=2>
« back to results for ""
Below is a cache of http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-0639.resp.pdf. It's a snapshot of the page taken as our search engine crawled the Web.
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.
In the Supreme Court of the United States
Nos. 01-639 and 01-662
In the Supreme Court of the United States
M
INORITY
M
EDIA AND
T
ELECOMMUNICATIONS
C
OUNCIL
,
ET AL
.,
PETITIONERS
v.
MD/DC/DE B
ROADCASTERS
A
SSOCIATION
,
ET AL
.
O
FFICE OF
C
OMMUNICATION
, I
NC
., U
NITED
C
HURCH OF
C
HRIST
,
PETITIONER
v.
MD/DC/DE B
ROADCASTERS
A
SSOCIATION
,
ET AL
.
ON PETITIONS FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE FEDERAL RESPONDENTS
IN OPPOSITION
J
ANE
E. M
AGO
General Counsel
Federal Communications
Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
T
HEODORE
B. O
LSON
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
R
ALPH
F. B
OYD
, J
R
.
Assistant Attorney General
M
ARK
L. G
ROSS
L
ISA
W
ILSON
E
DWARDS
Attorneys
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217 (I)
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the court of appeals erred in declaring
Option Ban alternate way of complying with the
Federal Communications Commissions equal employ-
ment opportunity regulationsunconstitutional on its
face, based on the theory that broadcasters selecting
that option would feel pressure to adopt recruiting
practices that could deprive potential job candidates of
information concerning job opportunities based on their
race. (III)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Opinions below ...............................................................................
1
Jurisdiction ......................................................................................
1
Statement ........................................................................................
2
Argument ........................................................................................
12
Conclusion .......................................................................................
24
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 121 S. Ct.
511 (2001) .................................................................................
24
Billish v. City of Chicago, 962 F.2d 1269 (7th Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 908 (1993) .............................
23
Contemporary Media, Inc. v. FCC, 214 F.3d 187
(D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1355 (2001) .......
19
Duffy v. Wolle, 123 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 1997), cert.
denied, 523 U.S. 1137 (1988) ................................................
22
Ensley Branch, NAACP v. Seibels, 31 F.3d
1548 (11th Cir. 1994) ..............................................................
23
Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198 (2001) ....................
21
International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States,
431 U.S. 324 (1977) ................................................................
15
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC, 141 F.3d
344 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ...................................................
4, 19, 20, 22
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC, 154 F.3d
487 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ................................................................
4
Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for
Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984) ...............................................
14
National Collegiate Athletic Assn v. Smith,
525 U.S. 459 (1999) ................................................................
21
Peightal v. Metropolitan Dade County, 26 F.3d
1545 (11th Cir. 1994) ..............................................................
23
Raso v. Lago, 135 F.3d 11 (1st Cir.) , cert. denied,
525 U.S. 811 (1988) ................................................................
21 IV
CasesContinued:
Page
South-Suburban Housing Center v. Greater South
Suburban Board of Realtors, 935 F.2d 868
(7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1074 (1992) ...........
23
Sussman v. Tanoue, 39 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C.
Cir. 1999) .................................................................................
20
Texas v. Cobb, 531 U.S. 1004 (2000) ...................................
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) ........
11-12, 14
Statutes and regulations:
Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Pub. L.
No. 98-549, § 634, 98 Stat. 2779 ...........................................
3
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competi-
tion Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat.
1460 .........................................................................................
3
§ 22(a)(1), 106 Stat. 1498 ..................................................
3
§ 22(f), 106 Stat. 1499 ........................................................
3
47 U.S.C. 301 ..............................................................................
19
47 U.S.C. 303 (1994 & Supp. V 1999) .....................................
19
47 U.S.C. 307 (1994 & Supp. V 1999) .....................................
19
47 U.S.C. 308 (1994 & Supp. V 1999) .....................................
19
47 U.S.C. 312 ..............................................................................
19
47 U.S.C. 334(a) .........................................................................
3, 21
47 U.S.C. 334(a)(1) ....................................................................
3
47 U.S.C. 554(b) .........................................................................
3
47 U.S.C. 554(c)(5) ....................................................................
3
29 C.F.R. 1602.7 ........................................................................
15
41 C.F.R. 60-2.11 to 60-2.15 .....................................................
15
47 C.F.R. 73.2080 ......................................................................
4
Section 73.2080(c) ..................................................................
5
Section 73.2080(c)(1) ..............................................................
5
Section 73.2080(c)(1)(ii) .........................................................
5
Section 73.2080(c)(2) ..............................................................
5, 6
Section 73.2080(c)(2)(iii) .......................................................
6
Section 73.2080(c)(2)(xii) ......................................................
6
Section 73.2080(c)(2)(xiii) .....................................................
6
Section 73.2080(c)(5) ..............................................................
6 V
RegulationContinued:
Page
Section 73.2080(d) ..................................................................
5, 6
Section 73.2080(d)(1) .............................................................
7
Section 73.2080(d)(2) .............................................................
7
Miscellaneous:
H.R. Rep. No. 934, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. (1984) ...................
3
FCC Proposes New Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) Rules of Broadcast and Cable, MM Docket
No. 98-204 (Dec. 12, 2001) ....................................................
18
Memorandum Opinion and Order, Review of the
Commissions Broadcast and Cable Equal
Employment Opportunity Rules and Policies,
15 FCC Rcd 22,548 (2000) ....................................................
8
Report and Order, Review of the Commissoins
Broadcast and Cable Equal Employment
Opportunity Rules and Policies, 15 FCC Rcd
2329 (2000) .................................................
4, 5, 6-7, 12-13, 15-16
Amendment of Part VI of FCC Forms 301, 303, 309,
311, 314, 315, 340 and 342, 32 F.C.C.2d 708 (1971) .........
2
Petition for Rulemaking to Require Broadcast
Licensees to Show Nondiscrimination in Their
Employment Practices:
18 F.C.C.2d 240 (1969) ......................................................
2
23 F.C.C.2d 430 (1970) ......................................................
2 (1)
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 01-639
M
INORITY
M
EDIA AND
T
ELECOMMUNICATIONS
C
OUNCIL
,
ET AL
.,
PETITIONERS
v.
MD/DC/DE B
ROADCASTERS
A
SSOCIATION
,
ET AL
.
No. 01-662
O
FFICE OF
C
OMMUNICATION
, I
NC
., U
NITED
C
HURCH OF
C
HRIST
,
PETITIONER
v.
MD/DC/DE B
ROADCASTERS
A
SSOCIATION
,
ET AL
.
ON PETITIONS FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE FEDERAL RESPONDENTS
IN OPPOSITION
OPINIONS BELOW
The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a) is
reported at 236 F.3d 13. The opinion of the court of
appeals on denial of rehearing (Pet. App. 20a) is
reported at 253 F.3d 732.
JURISDICTION
The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on
January 16, 2001, and rehearing was denied on June 19,
2001. On September 12 and 13, 2001, the Chief Justice 2
extended the time within which to file the petitions for
a writ of certiorari to