Master Supreme Court held that an agency may change policy under the APA if it acknowledges the change and provides a reasoned explanation, without proving the new policy is better than the old. with this comprehensive case brief.
FCC v. Fox Television Stations is a cornerstone administrative law case clarifying how courts review an agency's shift in policy under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Federal Communications Commission had long tolerated "fleeting expletives" on broadcast television, but reversed course and announced it would treat even isolated profanities as actionable indecency. When the Second Circuit vacated that policy change as arbitrary and capricious, the Supreme Court stepped in to articulate what the APA requires when agencies change direction.
The Court's opinion makes two enduring points. First, agencies need not prove that a new policy is superior to the old one; they must acknowledge the change and give "good reasons" for it that are permissible under the statute. Second, although no heightened standard generally applies to policy reversals, agencies must attend to reliance interests and provide a more detailed justification when a change disrupts serious, settled expectations. These principles travel far beyond broadcast indecency and now frame judicial review of agency reversals across regulatory domains and administrations.
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009)
The FCC has authority to regulate broadcast indecency under 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and its implementing policies, as recognized in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978). For years, the FCC generally declined to sanction "fleeting expletives" that occurred in live broadcasts. That stance began to shift in response to high-profile incidents: in 2003, during NBC's Golden Globes telecast, Bono exclaimed "this is really, really f---ing brilliant," which the FCC initially found not actionable under its fleeting-expletive approach. In 2004, however, the FCC issued the "Golden Globes Order," repudiating the lenient view and declaring that even a single, nonliteral use of the F-word could be indecent. In a later 2006 "Omnibus" order addressing several broadcasts, the FCC concluded that Fox's 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards telecasts were indecent because Cher and Nicole Richie used the F- and S-words during live, prime-time coverage. The FCC did not impose forfeitures because the policy had not yet been announced at the time of the broadcasts but issued notices explaining its new approach. Fox and other broadcasters petitioned for review. The Second Circuit vacated the FCC's orders, holding the agency's change in policy was arbitrary and capricious under the APA because it lacked a reasoned explanation and adequate empirical support. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Under the APA's arbitrary-and-capricious standard, may an agency lawfully change an existing policy without showing the new policy is superior to the old one, so long as it acknowledges the change, offers a reasoned explanation, and addresses relevant factors including reliance interests?
Under APA § 706(2)(A), a court must set aside agency action that is arbitrary or capricious. An agency changing course must display awareness that it is changing policy and provide a reasoned explanation for the new policy that is permissible under the governing statute. The agency need not show that the new policy is better than the prior one; it suffices that the new policy is permissible and that the agency believes it to be better, with a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. However, where a prior policy has engendered serious reliance interests, the agency must consider those interests and provide a more detailed justification. When a change rests on factual findings contrary to those underlying the prior policy, the agency must supply a reasoned explanation for disregarding or revising those prior facts. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm (1983); FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2009).
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit, holding that the FCC adequately acknowledged and explained its shift to treating even isolated expletives as potentially indecent. The APA does not require the FCC to demonstrate that its new policy is superior to its former approach, and the agency's predictive judgments about deterrence and protecting children were reasonable. Constitutional challenges were left for remand.
The Court, per Justice Scalia, emphasized that State Farm's arbitrary-and-capricious review applies to policy changes, but does not impose a heightened burden when an agency reverses itself. What is required is a reasoned explanation showing the agency is aware of the change and has "good reasons" for it. The FCC satisfied that standard. It explained that its prior tolerance for fleeting expletives undermined its indecency regime because a single use of the F-word often carries a vulgar sexual meaning even when used nonliterally, and its first, unexpected appearance may be the most shocking to viewers, including children. The agency reasoned that sanctioning isolated uses would better deter broadcasters from allowing or failing to delay live expletives. The Court rejected the Second Circuit's demand for empirical data proving deterrence, noting that agencies may rely on reasonable predictive judgments in policymaking where empirical certainty is elusive. Addressing reliance, the Court observed that broadcasters' reliance interests were limited: the FCC had not imposed fines for the pre-change broadcasts, and broadcasters were on notice following the Golden Globes Order that isolated expletives could lead to enforcement. The agency also adequately responded to significant comments and distinguished prior decisions that had tolerated fleeting expletives. The majority underscored that an agency need not provide a more compelling justification for a reversal than for an initial policy choice, except where significant reliance or contradictory factual findings require further explanation. The Court declined to resolve First Amendment challenges, leaving them for remand. Concurring opinions highlighted the need to consider reliance interests and questioned, in principle, the continuing validity of broadcast-specific First Amendment doctrines, while the dissent would have found the FCC's explanation insufficiently reasoned and inadequately attentive to past practice.
Fox is a leading case on how agencies may reverse course under the APA. It confirms that courts do not apply a special, heightened standard to policy changes, but agencies must acknowledge the change, justify it with "good reasons," and address reliance and any contradictory factual premises. This framework has guided later decisions scrutinizing agency reversals across administrations, including contexts far removed from broadcast indecency. For constitutional law and media regulation, Fox intersects with but does not resolve the First Amendment status of indecency enforcement. On remand and in subsequent litigation (FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012)), the Court ultimately invalidated certain indecency sanctions on due process vagueness grounds without reaching broader First Amendment issues. Still, Fox's administrative-law holding remains a staple for understanding arbitrary-and-capricious review and the treatment of reliance interests when agencies pivot.
Fox clarifies that no heightened standard applies merely because an agency changes policy. The agency must acknowledge it is changing course, show the new policy is permissible under the statute, provide good reasons for the change, and consider reliance interests. It need not prove the new policy is superior to the old one, though greater explanation may be required if the change disrupts serious reliance or contradicts prior factual findings.
The Court held that the FCC could rely on reasonable predictive judgments about deterrence and harms to children without furnishing empirical data conclusively proving those effects. Under arbitrary-and-capricious review, agencies may act on predictive reasoning when exact proof is not feasible, as long as the rationale is plausible and grounded in the record.
Not in the 2009 decision. The Court limited its ruling to the APA question and remanded for the Second Circuit to address constitutional challenges. In 2012, on a subsequent appeal, the Court held that the FCC's standards were impermissibly vague as applied to the broadcasts at issue, resolving the case on due process grounds and again avoiding a broad First Amendment ruling.
Reliance interests are the settled expectations and investments that regulated parties make based on an existing regulatory regime. Fox instructs that when an agency's new policy would upset serious reliance interests, the agency must recognize and weigh them, and offer a more detailed justification for the change. Failure to do so can render the action arbitrary and capricious.
Yes. The APA's arbitrary-and-capricious standard applies to final agency action, and Fox's reasoning has been cited broadly for the proposition that agencies must give reasoned explanations for reversals in interpretations or enforcement policies, even outside notice-and-comment rulemaking. Later cases, such as Encino Motorcars and Perez v. Mortgage Bankers, draw on Fox to require adequate explanation and attention to reliance when interpretive positions change.
Courts routinely invoke Fox when evaluating agency reversals in areas like labor, immigration, environmental regulation, and consumer protection. It is frequently paired with State Farm to assess whether agencies acknowledged a change, addressed key factors, explained contradictory facts, and accounted for reliance interests when shifting policies across administrations.
FCC v. Fox Television Stations reshaped the doctrinal landscape for agency reversals by confirming that the APA does not impose a special burden merely because an agency changes its mind. Instead, agencies must candidly acknowledge policy shifts, offer good reasons consistent with their statutory mandates, and attend to reliance and contradictory factual premises. That balanced approach gives agencies room to adapt while preserving meaningful judicial review for reasoned decisionmaking.
Although born of a culture-war context over broadcast indecency, Fox's enduring legacy is in administrative law. Its principles now guide courts and agencies whenever political transitions, new evidence, or evolving priorities prompt regulatory pivots, ensuring that policy change proceeds with transparency, rationality, and respect for regulated parties' settled expectations.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →