## Facts

- Congress enacted the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, requiring cable systems to carry a set of local broadcast television stations (“must-carry”).
- Cable operators and programmers challenged the must-carry provisions as violating the First Amendment by compelling carriage and limiting editorial control over channel capacity.
- In prior proceedings, the Supreme Court treated the provisions as content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny, but remanded for a fuller evidentiary record on whether the law addressed real harms without burdening more speech than necessary.
- On remand, after additional discovery, expert testimony, and economic evidence, a three-judge federal district court entered summary judgment for the government, finding substantial evidence supporting Congress’s findings and a sufficient fit between ends and means.
- The case returned on direct appeal to determine whether, on the expanded record, must-carry survives intermediate scrutiny.

## Issues

1. Whether the Cable Act’s must-carry provisions are content-neutral regulations subject to intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny.
2. Whether the must-carry provisions further important governmental interests unrelated to suppressing speech, supported by substantial evidence in the record.
3. Whether the provisions burden substantially more speech than necessary, given the compelled carriage and limits on cable operators’ editorial discretion.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment for the government.
- The Court held that the must-carry provisions are content-neutral and properly evaluated under intermediate scrutiny.
- The Court concluded that the expanded record provided substantial evidence supporting Congress’s judgment that must-carry advances important governmental interests.
- The Court held the provisions are not substantially more burdensome than necessary because they impose limited set-asides and preserve significant editorial discretion for cable operators.
- Justice O’Connor dissented (joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg), arguing the evidence and tailoring were inadequate and that the regime imposed impermissible compelled speech burdens.

## Legal Principles

- Cable operators engage in protected speech, but content-neutral structural regulation of cable systems is reviewed under intermediate scrutiny.
- A content-neutral speech regulation is valid if it advances important governmental interests unrelated to suppressing speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary.
- Important interests supporting must-carry include preserving free over-the-air local broadcasting, ensuring dissemination of information from multiple sources, and supporting fair competition in the television programming market.
- Congress may rely on predictive judgments in complex economic and communications regulation when supported by substantial evidence; courts independently review the record while giving substantial deference to reasonable legislative predictions.
- Intermediate scrutiny does not require the least restrictive means; it requires a reasonable fit between the asserted harms and the regulatory remedy.
- The burdens of compelled carriage may be justified where channel-occupancy limits and eligibility rules constrain the intrusion and leave cable operators control over most of their programming choices.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the Cable Act’s must-carry provisions as content-neutral regulations that, on a developed record, further important governmental interests and are sufficiently tailored because they address a realistic risk to local broadcasting and media source diversity without imposing substantially more speech burdens than necessary.


Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997)