## Facts

- The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to distribute federal funds to noncommercial educational radio and television stations.
- Section 399 of the Act barred any noncommercial educational broadcasting station receiving a CPB grant from “engag[ing] in editorializing.”
- A nonprofit operator of noncommercial educational radio stations that received CPB grants, along with related plaintiffs, brought a facial First Amendment challenge to § 399.
- A three-judge federal district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding § 399 unconstitutional.
- The federal government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether § 399’s prohibition on editorializing by noncommercial educational stations receiving CPB funds violates the First Amendment.
2. Whether the government’s asserted interests (e.g., preventing government-funded partisanship and political pressures, preserving balanced coverage) justify a flat, content-based ban on editorial speech.
3. Whether conditioning receipt of CPB funds on relinquishing the right to editorialize, including with private funds, is an unconstitutional condition.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment invalidating § 399’s editorializing ban.
- The Court held that § 399 is a content-based restriction aimed at editorial opinion on public issues, a category of speech at the core of First Amendment protection.
- The Court accepted that Congress has power to regulate broadcasting, but that such regulation remains constrained by the First Amendment.
- The Court found the statute not narrowly tailored to the government’s asserted interests because it imposed a blanket prohibition on editorializing by any station receiving any CPB funds.
- The Court emphasized that the statute barred editorializing even if financed entirely with private funds, and therefore imposed an excessive burden on protected speech as a condition of receiving federal support.

## Legal Principles

- Government regulation of broadcasting is permissible only within First Amendment limits; restrictions affecting speech must further a substantial governmental interest and be narrowly tailored.
- A content-based prohibition directed at editorial viewpoints on matters of public concern triggers heightened First Amendment scrutiny.
- The government may not condition a public benefit on surrender of First Amendment rights when the condition broadly suppresses protected speech and extends to the use of private funds.
- Preventing government-funded partisanship and political pressure may be substantial interests, but a flat ban on editorializing by funded stations is overinclusive where less restrictive alternatives could address those concerns.

## Conclusion

Section 399’s categorical ban on editorializing by noncommercial stations receiving CPB grants violated the First Amendment because it singled out public broadcasters for content-based suppression of core editorial speech and was not narrowly tailored, particularly insofar as it prohibited editorializing even with wholly private funds.


FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364 (1984)