Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

CITY OF NEW YORK et al. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al. (1988)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
CITY OF NEW YORK et al. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al.
Term: 1987
Important Dates
Argued: March 29, 1988
Decided: May 16, 1988
Outcome
Affirmed (includes modified)
Vote
9-0
Majority
Harry BlackmunWilliam BrennanAnthony KennedyThurgood MarshallSandra Day O'ConnorWilliam RehnquistAntonin ScaliaJohn Paul StevensByron White

CITY OF NEW YORK et al. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on May 16, 1988. The case was argued before the court on March 29, 1988.

In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction).

For a full list of cases decided in the 1980s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Rehnquist Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Federalism - federal pre-emption of state legislation or regulation. cf. state regulation of business. rarely involves union activity. Does not involve constitutional interpretation unless the Court says it does.
  • Petitioner: City, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit
  • Petitioner state: New York
  • Respondent type: Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 486 U.S. 57
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Cert
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: William Rehnquist
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Byron White

These data points were accessed from The Supreme Court Database, which also attempts to categorize the ideological direction of the court's ruling in each case. This case's ruling was categorized as liberal.

See also

External links

Footnotes