## Facts

- Federal law requires the FCC to review certain broadcast ownership rules periodically and repeal or modify rules it finds no longer in the public interest.
- The FCC maintained ownership limits restricting combinations among newspapers, radio, and television outlets, and limiting local television ownership.
- In a 2017 order, the FCC repealed the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule and the radio/television cross-ownership rule and relaxed the local television ownership rule.
- Public-interest groups challenged the 2017 changes, arguing the FCC inadequately assessed effects on minority and female ownership and thus acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The Third Circuit vacated most of the FCC’s 2017 order, concluding the FCC’s analysis of minority and female ownership effects lacked a reliable foundation.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated related petitions.

## Issues

1. Whether the FCC’s 2017 repeal or modification of three media ownership rules was arbitrary and capricious under the APA due to its treatment of limited data on minority and female broadcast ownership.
2. Whether a reviewing court may require the FCC to obtain better empirical data or perform additional studies before changing ownership rules.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Third Circuit.
- The Court held the FCC’s 2017 actions were not arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
- The Court concluded the FCC reasonably relied on the best available evidence, acknowledged data limitations, and provided a rational explanation for its predictive judgments about ownership-rule changes.
- The Court held the APA did not require the FCC to commission new studies or generate better data before acting.
- Justice Thomas concurred, questioning traditional justifications for broadcast-specific regulation but agreeing the FCC’s order survived APA review.

## Legal Principles

- Arbitrary-and-capricious review under the APA is narrow and deferential; courts may not substitute their policy judgments for the agency’s if the agency reasonably explains its decision and connects record facts to its choice.
- An agency may act based on imperfect or incomplete evidence when it reasonably explains why the evidence is adequate for decisionmaking and addresses significant record concerns.
- The APA generally does not require an agency to conduct or commission new empirical studies as a precondition to rule changes absent a statutory mandate.
- When an agency makes predictive judgments within its delegated authority, a court’s role is to ensure the judgment is rationally explained, not to demand an optimal or data-maximal policy choice.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the FCC’s repeal and relaxation of certain media ownership rules, ruling that the agency’s reliance on limited ownership data and its predictive policy judgments satisfied deferential APA review and that the Third Circuit improperly demanded more rigorous empirical support than the law requires.


FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 141 S. Ct. 1150 (2021)