## Facts

- Tribune Television Co. owned a daily newspaper (*Hartford Courant*) and two Hartford-area television stations, an ownership combination restricted by the FCC’s newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule absent a waiver.
- Tribune operated under a series of FCC temporary waivers and sought a permanent waiver; the FCC delayed action on that application.
- After a temporary waiver expired while the permanent-waiver request remained pending, Neil Ellis (a Hartford-area resident and viewer) sued Tribune in federal district court.
- Ellis invoked 47 U.S.C. § 401(b) and sought to compel Tribune’s compliance with the cross-ownership rule based on FCC actions he characterized as enforceable “orders.”
- The district court allowed the case to proceed, despite the unresolved waiver application before the FCC.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court should have dismissed or stayed the § 401(b) enforcement action and referred the dispute to the FCC under the primary jurisdiction doctrine while the FCC considered Tribune’s pending waiver request.
2. Whether, assuming arguendo that § 401(b) authorized enforcement of the relevant FCC actions, the court should nonetheless refrain from exercising that authority before the FCC acted.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment.
- The court held the district court erred by not dismissing or staying the action and referring the matter to the FCC under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
- The court directed that the dispute proceed in a manner consistent with primary jurisdiction, allowing the FCC to decide the pending waiver request first.

## Legal Principles

- Primary jurisdiction applies when a claim is originally cognizable in court but resolution depends on issues committed to an agency’s special competence; the court should defer by staying the case or dismissing without prejudice pending agency action.
- Congress vested the FCC with exclusive authority over broadcast licensing matters and broad discretion to grant, condition, extend, or revoke licenses and waivers in the public interest.
- Even if a district court may enforce certain agency “orders” under 47 U.S.C. § 401(b), it should not proceed where doing so risks inconsistent outcomes with imminent agency determinations on the same regulatory question.
- Agency delay does not, by itself, justify bypassing the agency’s first-instance role when the dispute centers on the effect, scope, and continuation of waivers within the agency’s licensing regime.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that a private enforcement suit seeking to force compliance with FCC cross-ownership rules could not proceed in district court while the FCC was still considering a related waiver request, because the dispute fell within the FCC’s licensing authority and proceeding in court posed an unacceptable risk of conflicting rulings.


Ellis v. Tribune Television Co., 443 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006)