Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
1,760 federal appellate · 435 district · 399 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4,359 later decisions (277 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998), Bell v. Wolfish (1979)
1,760 federal appellate · 435 district · 399 state decisions — followed in 36 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedRed Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 47 U.S.C. § 301 · 47 U.S.C. § 303 (Local Community Radio Act of 2010) · 47 U.S.C. § 307 · 47 U.S.C. § 309 (Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005) · 47 U.S.C. § 312 · 47 U.S.C. § 315 · 5 U.S.C. § 1004
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Udall v. Tallman · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Garrison v. State of Louisiana
Cited together with Udall v. Tallman · Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · National Broadcasting Co. v. United States · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4,359 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Subsequent legislation declaring the intent of an earlier statute is entitled to great weight in statutory construction.”
208 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any- (1) bona fide newscast, (2) bona fide news interview, (3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or (4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto), shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.