// BEGIN editorial data var i = 0; var Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases = new Array(); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.ID = "Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases"; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.ID_WB = 26996199; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.sPubDate = "7/15/2009 9:00:45 PM GMT"; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.navsectionID = "3032071" Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.appFmt = 2; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.itemsPerPage = 1; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.appWidth = 460; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.appHeader = "fact file|Notable Supreme Court cases - 2008-2009"; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.mainArt = "

"; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.appDeck = "Pete Williams looks at key cases before the nation's highest court"; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.appFooter = "Source: NBC's Pete Williams"; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.appNavStyle = 3; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.bDhtml = 0; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.appLayout = 3; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.copyHeight = 300; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.copyWidth = 340; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases.copyMargin = 9; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Introduction","NBC's Pete Williams","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Bylines/mugs/NBC%20News/nbc_williams_pete.htease.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "right", "", "", "97", "148", "", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i-1].body = "
The Supreme Court's 2008-2009 session includes a number of important issues. Click to the left for more details on the high-profile cases on this term's docket."; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","PENDING","","","","", "sub", "", "", "", "right", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Hillary: The Movie","Video: Supreme Court weighs ‘Hillary: The Movie’","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/090324/tdy_williams_hillary_090324.htease.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "right", "", "", "110", "147", "#000000", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i-1].body = "
Case: Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 08-205
Status: Pending. Argued March 24, 2009
Details: A documentary entitled \"Hillary: The Movie\" is a harshly critical 90-minute film that long-time opponents of the Clintons wanted to make available just as the presidential primaries were heating up in January 2008. They made arrangements to have it appear on cable TV as a video-on-demand offering.
But the Federal Election Commission blocked the film, deeming it nothing more than a glorified attack ad, improperly paid for in part by corporate contributions. The FEC said it ran afoul of the McCain-Feingold law intended to keep corporate money out of politics, even though the contributions to the film came from a small non-profit.
Citizens United, the group behind the movie, is urging the Supreme Court to overturn lower court rulings upholding the ban, calling the film \"the very definition of robust, uninhibited debate about a subject of intense political interest that the First Amendment is there to guarantee.\"
During oral argument, a majority of the court seemed ready to put the movie in a different category from 30-and-60-second TV and radio electioneering ads, paid for with corporate money, that Congress in 2002 banned during the weeks before primary and general elections.
Because \"Hillary: The Movie\" was to be a video-on-demand selection, people who wanted to see it would have to seek it out, which would make it different from short attack ads that wash over captive television viewers, several of the justices suggested.
\"Here you have a medium in which somebody listens only if that person wants to listen. So the person speaking wants to speak, and the person hearing wants to hear. It seems to me that's a stronger First Amendment interest,\" said Justice Antonin Scalia."; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","DECIDED","","","","", "sub", "", "", "", "right", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Racial diversity or reverse discrimination?","Video: Supreme Court weighs race issue","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/090422/nn_05pwms_firecase_090422.htease.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "right", "", "", "110", "147", "#000000", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i-1].body = "
Case: Ricci v Destefano, 07-1428
Status: Decided on June 29, 2009. Argued on April 22, 2009.
Decision: The court's conservative majority prevailed in a 5-4 ruling that faulted New Haven and the courts that had upheld the city's discarding of results of an exam in which no African-Americans scored high enough to be promoted to lieutenant or captain.Click here to read the court’s ruling (.pdf):
Details: Frank Ricci, an eleven-year veteran of the New Haven, Connecticut fire department, was eager to qualify for promotion. Because he has dyslexia, he paid to have books read on tape so he could prepare for a required written test.
He scored high enough to qualify for promotion. But because none of the black firemen did, the city threw the test out, saying the results showed it was unfair to minority candidates.
Frank Ricci and 16 other white firefighters sued, claiming the city's action amounted to reverse discrimination.
The lawsuit had the Supreme Court struggling with the question of how far cities can go in trying to achieve racial diversity before they end up illegally discriminating on the basis of race.
During oral argument, Justice Anthony Kennedy, likely the critical vote, seemed to find that New Haven crossed that line. \"It classified the successful and unsuccessful applicants by race. Then you want us to say this isn't race? I have trouble with that.\"
But civil rights groups said New Haven was right to throw the test out because it included questions unrelated to the job. They said cities must take race into account in promotions, with the goal of developing police and fire departments that look like the citizens that they serve."; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","When can students be strip-searched for drugs?","Video: Top court hears strip-search case","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/090421/tdy_williams_stripsearch_090421.htease.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "left", "", "", "110", "147", "#000000", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i-1].body = "
Case: Safford Unified Schools v Redding, 08-479
Status: Decided on June 25, 2009. Argued on April 21, 2009.
Decision: In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches when they ordered Savana Redding to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear.
Click here to read the court’s ruling (.pdf):
Details: At Safford Middle School in southeast Arizona, all it took was some extra-strength Ibuprofen pills to set events in motion that led to a strip-search of a 13-year-old girl.
The assistant principal brought Savana Redding, an 8th grade honors student, into his office after another student accused her of passing the pills around.
When nothing was found in her backpack, she was sent to the nurse's office, ordered to undress, and told to move her bra and underwear to the side, exposing herself. No pills were found.
Now 19, she says the humiliation traumatized her. \"I think I was just trying to keep myself from crying,\" she recalls. She claims the search was unconstitutional. Schools need more than a vague tip, she argues, to justify something as intrusive strip search.
But the Arizona school district says schools should have the authority to conduct strip-searches, especially given that prescription drug abuse is a growing problem. Administrators, the school says, should not have to decide exactly what a drug is before conducting a search.
Even if the court were to uphold strip searches, local school boards can still block them, as three three-quarters of them in Arizona already have."; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Is the Voting Rights Act no longer needed?","Video: Supreme Court re-examines landmark civil rights law","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/090429/nn_05pwms_civilrightlaw_090429.htease.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "left", "", "", "110", "147", "#000000", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i-1].body = "
Case: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v Holder, 08-322
Status: Decided on June 22, 2009. Argued April 29, 2009
Decision: The court, with only one justice in partial dissent, said Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 can opt out of the advance approval requirement.
Click here to read the court’s ruling (.pdf):
Details: With Martin Luther King watching, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, tearing down barriers to black voting that were then spreading faster than civil rights groups could stop them. The law was intended to be temporary, but Congress has repeatedly renewed it.
But now, with the election of the first African-American president and more minorities voting and holding office, a group of challengers from Austin, Texas says the law is too intrusive and has become unconstitutional.
The act requires the Justice Department to review election rules in all or part of eight southern states, along with Arizona, Alaska, and a scattering of areas nationwide with a history of vote discrimination. Its defenders say they've found over a thousand attempts to limit minority voting in the past 25 years.
During oral argument, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to believe the law is still necessary. \"You start with the blatant, overt discrimination. And then in time, the discrimination becomes more subtle, less easy to smoke out.\"
But the court's conservatives seemed troubled that the law does not apply in other states, where minority registration is actually lower than in the South.
\"The question is whether or not it can be justified, when other states are not covered today,\" said Justice Anthony Kennedy."; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Prisoners and DNA testing","Video: The right to DNA tests?","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/090302/x_dc_nn_scotusdna_090302.htease.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "right", "", "", "110", "147", "#000000", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i-1].body = "
Case: District Attorney's Office v Osborne, 08-6
Status: Decided on June 18, 2009. Argued on March 2, 2009
Decision: The court, in a 5-4 ruling, said convicts have no constitutional right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence.
Click here to read the court’s ruling (.pdf):
Details: DNA testing has freed 232 wrongly convicted prisoners, 17 of them sentenced to death. Though most states allow prisoners to get some DNA testing, defense lawyers say those laws don't go far enough.
An Alaska man, William Osborne, is asking the Supreme Court to give him access to crime scene DNA, so he can get a more accurate test performed than was available 15 years ago, when he was convicted of rape. His lawyer urges the Supreme Court to rule that convicted prisoners have a constitutional right to re-test the evidence.
But during oral argument, some of the justices worried that declaring a right to DNA testing could give an unfair advantage to some defendants accused of a crime, who could take their chances by trying to keep DNA out of the trial but demanding access to it later if they lose.
\"You'd have a built-in second chance,\" said Justice Anthony Kennedy."; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Do big campaign contributions taint judges?","Video: Supreme Court judges the justices","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/__NEW/x_nn_judges.htease.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "left", "", "", "110", "147", "#000000", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i-1].body = "
Case: Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Company, 08-22
Status: Decided on June 8, 2009.
Argued on March 3, 2009.
Decision: In a 5-4 vote the court said the judge who remained involved in a lawsuit filed against the company of the most generous supporter of his election deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair trial.
Click here to read the court’s ruling (.pdf):
Details: After a coal company executive lost a $50 million lawsuit in West Virginia, he decided to appeal the verdict to the state supreme court. But the court had a justice he considered hostile to business interests.
So he spent $3 million on ads to get that justice defeated. The campaign helped elect a new judge, Brent Benjamin. And when the executive's case came up on appeal, Justice Benjamin voted for the coal company to win. Result: big verdict overturned.
The man who lost that appeal, Hugh Caperton, asks the US Supreme Court to rule that judges should be disqualified from hearing cases when there's an appearance that they'd be biased.
But the coal company's lawyer argued there would be no limit to such a standard -- that judges might have to take themselves off cases involving newspapers, for example, if they'd ever received an endorsement.
During oral argument, some of the Supreme Court's conservatives, including Antonin Scalia, found that line impossible to draw. \"I was appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan,\" he said, \"Should I have been any less grateful to Ronald Reagan than the judge here was grateful to the person who spent a lot of money in his election?\"
But Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed concerned about bias. He said, \"It does seem to me that the appearance standard has much to recommend it.\"
And Justice John Paul Stevens echoed a famous comment from another Supreme Court justice decades ago on the subject of pornography. He said, \"This fits the standard of, 'I know it when I see it.'\""; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Government officials and 9/11 lawsuits","Video: High court tests tactics of war on terror","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/081205/nn_04pwilliams_warterror_081205.htease.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "left", "", "", "110", "147", "#000000", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i-1].body = "
Case: Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015
Issue: Can senior government officials be sued over the mistreatment of suspects picked up in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks?
Status: Decided on May 18, 2009
Argued on Dec. 10, 2008.
Decision: By a 5-4 vote, the court said when someone wants to sue high level government officials for mistreatment, the suit must be specific about what those officials did to cause harm. It isn't enough, the court said, simply to allege that the top level officials were in charge and are therefore responsible.
Click here to read the court’s ruling (.pdf):
Details: In the frantic few months after Sept. 11, the FBI questioned more than 1,000 people suspected of having some connection to terrorism. Many were released, but 762 were held on immigration charges. Of them, 184 were deemed to be of \"high interest.\" One was Javid Iqbal, arrested in New York City and detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, accused of document fraud. After he pleaded guilty, he was sent back to Pakistan.
He then sued 34 current and former U.S. officials, including John Ashcroft, who was attorney general when he was arrested, and Robert Mueller, the director of the FBI. He claims that they were responsible for a policy which subjected Arabic or Muslim men to especially harsh treatment. In his case, he alleges that he was inadequately fed and lost 40 pounds. He also says he was brutally beaten twice, called a terrorist and a killer, and subjected to daily strip and body-cavity searches.
The lower courts have allowed his lawsuit to go forward, but the Justice Department urges the Supreme Court to find Ashcroft, Mueller, and other senior officials immune from such lawsuits. In the days after Sept. 11, the government says, the officials were deluged with extraordinary demands. What's more, the government says, Iqbal cannot show that the senior officials were personally involved in the conduct that resulted in his mistreatment."; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Protecting whales from the navy","Video: Supreme Court rules in sonar case","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/__NEW/x_dc_nn_navysonar_081112.htease.jpg","","", "", "", "88c0d2c3-6ab8-4040-9a8f-202692970901|", "", "right", "", "", "110", "147", "#000000", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i-1].body = "
Case: Winter v. Natural Resources, 07-1239
Issue: Does the safety of whales trump the Navy's use of sonar?
Status: Decided no Nov. 12, 2008
Argued on October 8, 2008.
Decision: By a vote of 5-4 the Supreme Court lifted restrictions, saying the Navy needs to conduct realistic training exercises to respond to potential threats by enemy submarines.
Click here to read the court’s ruling (.pdf):
Details: Environmental groups contend that the Navy's use of mid-frequency active sonar in training exercises off the coast of Southern California harms marine life, especially whales. Relying on the Navy's own estimate that nearly 500 whales could be permanently injured, a federal court blocked the use of sonar exercises entirely, though the order was later relaxed.
The government argues that the exercises are essential to national security and that Congress has determined that \"the public interest in military readiness outweighs the interest in protecting marine mammals.\" The government also contends that many more marine animals are killed by fishermen than would be harmed by the sonar exercises.
Click her to read the argument transcripts (.pdf):"; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Suing cigarette companies","Video: Justices to decide right to sue","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/081005/nn_pwilliams_scotus_081005.htease.jpg","","", "v", "", "73cc4d81-b4f7-45c5-8a78-45743859f116|", "", "right", "", "", "110", "147", "#000000", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i-1].body = "
Case: Altria Group v. Good, 07-562
Issue: Can cigarette companies be sued over labels advertising low tar and nicotine?
Status: Decided on Dec. 15, 2008
Argued on Oct. 6, 2008.
Decision: In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled smokers may sue state consumer protection laws to sue for the way cigarette makers market “light” and “low tar” cigarettes, but the people suing must still prove those labels actually violate state anti-fraud laws.
Click here to read the court’s ruling (.pdf):
Details: Smokers in Maine claim that Philip Morris misled them with the names of two cigarette brands, Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights, and the phrase \"lowered tar and nicotine\" on some package labels. The smokers said the brand names and labels violated Maine's law against unfair trade practices, arguing that the companies knew that the light brands delivered the same amount of tar and nicotine as regular brands.
But the tobacco company is asking the Supreme Court to rule that state lawsuits should be blocked because cigarette labeling is governed by the Federal Trade Commission. If the FTC allows a package label, the company says, a state jury cannot substitute its own judgment about how it should be worded.
This may be a difficult case for the cigarette maker to win: the FTC itself sides with the smokers and says it has never explicitly endorsed low tar and nicotine labels.
Click her to read the argument transcripts (.pdf):"; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Protection from retaliation","","","","", "", "", "", "", "right", "", "", "110", "147", "", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i-1].body = "
Case: Crawford v. Nashville and Davidson County, 06-1595
Issue: Are employees questioned about jobsite discrimination protected against retaliation if they reveal pertinent information?
Status: Decided on Jan. 26, 2009
Argued on Oct. 8, 2008.
Decision: In a unanimous ruling, the court ruled the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to employees who voluntarily cooperate with an employer’s internal investigations, even if the employee didn’t initiate the investigation and has filed no formal charge.
Click here to read the court’s ruling (.pdf):
Details: After a Tennessee school district received complaints about its male director of human relations, an investigator interviewed several female employees who worked with the man. One of them, Vicky Crawford, a local government payroll coordinator for 30 years, accused him of sexually harassing employees.
The human relations director was never disciplined, but Crawford was fired. When she sued, lower courts ruled that federal law does not protect her against retaliation for her cooperation with harassment investigators.
Both she and the Justice Department say that if allowed to stand, the rulings would discourage witnesses of workplace discrimination and harassment from ever reporting it. But business groups say she was fired after bookkeeping irregularities were discovered. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues that if the courts allowed lawsuits like hers, underperforming employees would be immunized from any kind of discipline, even years after the fact, if they could show that they once answered questions in a harassment investigation.
Click her to read the argument transcripts (.pdf):"; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Ten Commandments monument in a park","","","","", "", "", "", "", "right", "", "", "110", "147", "", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i-1].body = "
Case: Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 07-665
Issue: If a city park contains a Ten Commandments monument, must it also be open to accepting monuments connected to other religious faiths?
Status: Decision on Feb. 25, 2009
Argument on Nov. 12, 2008.
Decision: In an unanimous decision, the court ruled the religious group cannot force Pleasant Grove City to place a granite marker in a local park that already is home to a Ten Commandments display saying that governments can decide what to display in a public park without running afoul of the First Amendment.
Click here to read the court’s ruling (.pdf):
Issue: Monuments to the Ten Commandments have sparked several lawsuits across the country, usually over whether their placement in public parks constitutes an improper government endorsement of religion. But this is not a case about removing those displays. Instead, it's about a request to place another religious monument in the same park.
For nearly 40 years, a monument to the Ten Commandments, donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, has been in a Pleasant Grove, Utah park. Pioneer Park also includes several monuments and buildings that the city believes reflect its history and traditions. In 2003, a religious organization called Summum asked the city for permission to put up a monument in the park listing the church's \"seven aphorisms\" (\"psychokinesis, correspondence, vibration, opposition, rhythm, cause and effect, and gender\"), which its followers believe were on the original tablets handed to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Summum sued when the the city refused, saying that only monuments reflecting the city's heritage are allowed in the park.
Lower courts rejected the city's argument that the decision to allow a monument in a public park is a form of government speech. Instead, they ruled that a park is a public forum. Once the city allowed one monument to be donated by a private group, it opened the door for others. Pleasant Grove argues that if the rulings are upheld, public parks will be overrun with competing monuments."; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Drug companies and lawsuit protection","","","","", "", "", "03f97371-aeb7-4410-8db7-e1e7fa213d60|", "", "right", "", "", "110", "147", "", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i-1].body = "
Case: Wyeth v. Levine, 06-1249
Issue: Does federal regulation of drug labels insulate drug companies from lawsuits in state courts over the safety of their products?
Status: Decided on Mar. 4, 2009
Argued on Nov. 3, 2008.
Decision: In a 6-3 decision, the court rejected Wyeth Pharmaceuticals' claim that federal approval of its Phenergan anti-nausea drug should have shielded the company from lawsuits like the one filed by Diana Levine of Vermont.
Click here to read the court’s ruling (.pdf):
Details: One of the most important cases of the Supreme Court's term comes with a heartbreaking background. Levine, a guitar player, sought treatment in a local clinic for migraine headaches. She was given a painkiller and, to control the nausea, an injection of a drug called Phenergan, made by Wyeth Laboratories. The drug label warns that if injected into an artery, it can cause gangrene. For that reason, it is typically given by intravenous drip or injected into muscle. But in Levine's case, it was administered by \"IV push,\" and the drug appeared to be mistakenly injected into an artery. Within weeks, her right hand and forearm had to be amputated.
A Vermont jury found Wyeth at fault for not explicitly warning on the label against delivery of Phenergan by IV push and ordered Wyeth to pay her $6.7 million.
Wyeth and the pharmaceutical industry argue that lawsuits like hers in state court are barred by federal law. Drug labels, they argue, are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, which balances the risks of drugs against the benefits. If individual state courts can dictate label requirements, that balance would be lost, they maintain. The FDA agrees with Wyeth and urges the Supreme Court to rule that state lawsuits are preempted by federal label regulations. But supporters of Levine say state lawsuits like hers help the FDA discover potential drug risks."; Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Indecency and unscripted live broadcasts","","","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", ""); Pol_SCOTUS_2008_2009_Cases[i-1].body = "
Case: Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television, 07-582
Issue: Did the FCC properly find television networks at fault for indecent words spoken during live, unscripted broadcasts?
Status: Decision on Apr. 28, 2009. Argued on Nov. 4, 2008.
Decision: In a 5-4 ruling, the court narrowly upheld the government policy that threatens broadcasters with fines over the use of even a single curse word on live television. But in six separate opinions the justices suggested they could yet find the Federal Communications Commission's \"fleeting expletives\" policy unconstitutional. The court said a federal appeals court should weigh whether it violates First Amendment guarantees of free speech.
Click here to read the court’s ruling (.pdf):
Details: When singer Bono accepted an award at the 2003 Golden Globes, which was broadcast on NBC, he said, \"This is really, really f*****g brilliant.\" In 2002 and 2003, during Fox broadcasts of music award ceremonies, Cher and Nicole Richie also used expletives. The FCC said all three broadcasts violated its rules against indecency and exposed children to foul language. But a federal appeals court overturned the FCC's finding.
The TV networks, including NBC, one of the parent companies of MSNBC, argue that the FCC has repeatedly changed its mind about whether \"fleeting expletives\" violate the rules against indecency. They argue that the FCC finding was inconsistent with its earlier positions and violates the First Amendment rights of broadcasters. The FCC says the rules were never intended to give broadcasters a \"one-free-expletive\" rule. Whether an utterance is indecent, the FCC says, should depend on the context in which it is spoken."; // END editorial data