NOTICE: This opinion is subject to
formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the
United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter
of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington,
D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in
order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print
goes to press.

															SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

															_________________

															Nos. 19–1231 and 19–1241

															_________________

															FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,
et al., PETITIONERS

															19–1231 v. PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT,
et al.

															NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS,
et al., PETITIONERS

															19–1241 v. PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT,
et al.

															on writs of certiorari to the united states
court of appeals for the third circuit

															[April 1, 2021]

															Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the
Court.

															Under the Communications Act of 1934, the
Federal Communications Commission possesses broad authority to
regulate broadcast media in the public interest. Exercising that
statutory authority, the FCC has long maintained strict ownership
rules. The rules limit the number of radio stations, television
stations, and newspapers that a single entity may own in a given
market. Under Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
the FCC must review the ownership rules every four years, and must
repeal or modify any ownership rules that the agency determines are
no longer in the public interest.

															In a 2017 order, the FCC concluded that three of
its ownership rules no longer served the public interest. The FCC
therefore repealed two of those rules—the Newspaper/Broadcast
Cross-Ownership Rule and the Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rule.
And the Commission modified the third—the Local Television
Ownership Rule. In conducting its public interest analysis under
Section 202(h), the FCC considered the effects of the rules on
competition, localism, viewpoint diversity, and minority and female
ownership of broadcast media outlets. The FCC concluded that the
three rules were no longer necessary to promote competition,
localism, and viewpoint diversity, and that changing the rules was
not likely to harm minority and female ownership.

															A non-profit advocacy group known as Prometheus
Radio Project, along with several other public interest and
consumer advocacy groups, petitioned for review, arguing that the
FCC’s decision was arbitrary and capricious under the
Administrative Procedure Act. In particular, Prometheus contended
that the record evidence did not support the FCC’s predictive
judgment regarding minority and female ownership. Over Judge
Scirica’s dissent, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
agreed with Prometheus and vacated the FCC’s 2017 order.

															On this record, we conclude that the FCC’s 2017
order was reasonable and reasonably explained for purposes of the
APA’s deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard. We therefore
reverse the judgment of the Third Circuit.

															I

															The Federal Communications Commission
possesses broad statutory authority to regulate broadcast media “as
public convenience, interest, or necessity requires.” 47
U. S. C. §303; see also §309(a). Exercising that
authority, the FCC has historically maintained several strict
ownership rules. The rules limit the number of radio stations,
television stations, and newspapers that a single entity may own in
a given market. See FCC v. National Citizens Comm. for
Broadcasting , 436 U.S.
775 , 780–781, and nn. 1–3, 783–784 (1978). The FCC has long
explained that the ownership rules seek to promote competition,
localism, and viewpoint diversity by ensuring that a small number
of entities do not dominate a particular media market. See id. , at 780–781, 808; In re 2002 Biennial Regulatory
Review—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , 17 FCC Rcd. 18503,
18515–18527 (2002).

															This case concerns three of the FCC’s current
ownership rules. The first is the Newspaper/Broadcast
Cross-Ownership Rule. Initially adopted in 1975, that rule
prohibits a single entity from owning a radio or television
broadcast station and a daily print newspaper in the same media
market. The second is the Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rule.
Initially adopted in 1970, that rule limits the number of combined
radio stations and television stations that an entity may own in a
single market. And the third is the Local Television Ownership
Rule. Initially adopted in 1964, that rule restricts the number of
local television stations that an entity may own in a single
market.

															The FCC adopted those rules in an early-cable
and pre-Internet age when media sources were more limited. By the
1990s, however, the market for news and entertainment had changed
dramatically. Technological advances led to a massive increase in
alternative media options, such as cable television and the
Internet. Those technological advances challenged the traditional
dominance of daily print newspapers, local radio stations, and
local television stations. See, e.g., In re 2002
Biennial Regulatory Review—Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking , 18 FCC Rcd. 13620, 13647–13667 (2003) (2002
Review).

															In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton
signed the Telecommunications Act. To ensure that the FCC’s
ownership rules do not remain in place simply through inertia,
Section 202(h) of the Act directs the FCC to review its ownership
rules every four years to determine whether those rules remain
“necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.”
§202(h), 110Stat. 111–112, as amended §629, 118Stat. 99–100, note
following 47 U. S. C. §303. After conducting each
quadrennial Section 202(h) review, the FCC “shall repeal or modify”
any rules that it determines are “no longer in the public
interest.” Ibid. Section 202(h) establishes an iterative
process that requires the FCC to keep pace with industry
developments and to regularly reassess how its rules function in
the marketplace. See In re 2002 Biennial Regulatory
Review—Report , 18 FCC Rcd. 4726, 4732 (2003).

															Soon after Section 202(h) was enacted, the FCC
stated that the agency’s traditional public interest goals of
promoting competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity would
inform its Section 202(h) analyses. 2002 Review, 18 FCC Rcd., at
13627; see also In re 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review ,
15 FCC Rcd. 11058, 11061–11062 (2000). The FCC has also said that,
as part of its public interest analysis under Section 202(h), it
would assess the effects of the ownership rules on minority and
female ownership. 2002 Review, 18 FCC Rcd. , at 13627, 13634,
and n. 67; see also In re 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory
Review—Notice of Inquiry , 25 FCC Rcd. 6086, 6106 (2010); cf. In re Amendment of Section 73.3555 [formerly Sections
73.35, 73.240 and 73.636] of the Commission’s Rules Relating to
Multiple Ownership of AM, FM and Television Broadcast Stations ,
100 F. C. C. 2d 74, 97 (1985).

															Since 2002, the Commission has repeatedly sought
to change several of its ownership rules—including the three rules
at issue here—as part of its Section 202(h) reviews. See 2002
Review, 18 FCC Rcd., at 13622–13623 (eliminating strict caps on
newspaper/broadcast and radio/television cross-ownership and
modifying the Local Television Ownership Rule); In re 2006
Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration , 23 FCC Rcd. 2010, 2021 (2008) (relaxing the
Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule). But for the last 17
years, the Third Circuit has rejected the FCC’s efforts as unlawful
under the APA. See Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC , 373 F.3d 372 (2004); Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC , 652 F.3d 431 (2011); see also 824 F.3d 33 (2016). As a
result, those three ownership rules exist in substantially the same
form today as they did in 2002.[ 1 ]

															The current dispute arises out of the FCC’s most
recent attempt to change its ownership rules. In its quadrennial
Section 202(h) order issued in 2016, the FCC concluded that the
Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership, Radio/Television
Cross-Ownership, and Local Television Ownership Rules remained
necessary to serve the agency’s public interest goals of promoting
“competition and a diversity of viewpoints in local markets.” In re 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Second Report and
Order , 31 FCC Rcd. 9864, 9865 (2016) (2016 Order). The FCC
therefore chose to retain the existing rules with only “minor
modifications.” Ibid. A number of groups sought reconsideration of the
2016 Order. In 2017, the Commission (with a new Chair) granted
reconsideration. In re 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory
Review—Order on Reconsideration and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking , 32 FCC Rcd. 9802 (2017) (2017 Reconsideration
Order). On reconsideration, the FCC performed a new public interest
analysis. The agency explained that rapidly evolving technology and
the rise of new media outlets—particularly cable and Internet—had
transformed how Americans obtain news and entertainment, rendering
some of the ownership rules obsolete. See, e.g., id., at 9811–9815. As a result of those market changes, the FCC
concluded that the three ownership rules no longer served the
agency’s public interest goals of fostering competition, localism,
and viewpoint diversity. Id., at 9810, 9830, and n. 197,
9835–9836. The FCC explained that permitting efficient combinations
among radio stations, television stations, and newspapers would
benefit consumers. See id. , at 9819, 9830, 9835–9836.

															The Commission also considered the likely impact
of any changes to its ownership rules on minority and female
ownership. The FCC concluded that repealing or modifying the three
ownership rules was not likely to harm minority and female
ownership. Id., at 9822–9824, 9830–9831, 9839–9840.[ 2 ]

															Based on its analysis of the relevant factors,
the FCC decided to repeal the Newspaper/Broadcast and
Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rules, and to modify the Local
Television Ownership Rule. Id., at 9803.

															Prometheus and several other public interest and
consumer advocacy groups petitioned for review, arguing that the
FCC’s decision to repeal or modify those three rules was arbitrary
and capricious under the APA.

															The Third Circuit vacated the 2017
Reconsideration Order. The court did not dispute the FCC’s
conclusion that those three ownership rules no longer promoted the
agency’s public interest goals of competition, localism, and
viewpoint diversity. But the court held that the record did not
support the FCC’s conclusion that the rule changes would “have
minimal effect” on minority and female ownership. 939 F.3d 567, 584
(2019). The court directed the Commission, on remand, to “ascertain
on record evidence” the effect that any rule changes were likely to
have on minority and female ownership, “whether through new
empirical research or an in-depth theoretical analysis.” Id., at 587.

															Judge Scirica dissented in relevant part. In his
view, the FCC reasonably analyzed the record evidence and made a
reasonable predictive judgment that the rule changes were not
likely to harm minority and female ownership. Id., at
590.

															The FCC and a number of industry groups
petitioned for certiorari. We granted certiorari. 591 U. S.
___ (2020).

															II

															In the 2017 Reconsideration Order, the FCC
changed three of its ownership rules because it concluded that the
rules were no longer in the public interest. In particular, the FCC
concluded that the rules no longer served the agency’s goals of
fostering competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity, and
further concluded that repealing or modifying the rules was not
likely to harm minority and female ownership.

															Prometheus argues that the FCC’s predictive
judgment regarding minority and female ownership was arbitrary and
capricious under the APA. See 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A). We
disagree.

															The APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard
requires that agency action be reasonable and reasonably explained.
Judicial review under that standard is deferential, and a court may
not substitute its own policy judgment for that of the agency. A
court simply ensures that the agency has acted within a zone of
reasonableness and, in particular, has reasonably considered the
relevant issues and reasonably explained the decision. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. , 556 U.S.
502 , 513–514 (2009); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United
States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. , 463 U.S.
29 , 43 (1983); see also FCC v. WNCN Listeners
Guild , 450 U.S.
582 , 596 (1981).

															In its 2017 Reconsideration Order, the FCC
analyzed the significant record evidence of dramatic changes in the
media market over the past several decades. See, e.g., 32
FCC Rcd., at 9803, 9807, 9825, 9834. After thoroughly examining
that record evidence, the Commission determined that the
Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership, Radio/Television
Cross-Ownership, and Local Television Ownership Rules were no
longer necessary to serve the agency’s public interest goals of
promoting competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity. The FCC
therefore concluded that repealing the two cross-ownership rules
and modifying the Local Television Ownership Rule would fulfill
“the mandates of Section 202(h)” and “deliver on the Commission’s
promise to adopt broadcast ownership rules that reflect the
present, not the past.” Id., at 9803.

															In analyzing whether to repeal or modify those
rules, the FCC also addressed the possible impact on minority and
female ownership. The Commission explained that it had sought
public comment on the issue of minority and female ownership during
multiple Section 202(h) reviews, but “no arguments were made” that
would lead the FCC to conclude that the existing rules were
“necessary to protect or promote minority and female ownership.” Id., at 9822; see also id., at 9831, 9839; cf. In re 2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking , 21 FCC Rcd. 8834, 8837 (2006) (soliciting
evidence on minority and female ownership); In re 2010
Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Notice of Inquiry , 25 FCC Rcd.,
at 6106, 6108–6109 (same); In re 2014 Quadrennial
Regulatory Review—Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Report
and Order , 29 FCC Rcd. 4371, 4460, and n. 595, 4470 (2014)
(same). Indeed, the FCC stated that it had received several
comments suggesting the opposite—namely, comments suggesting that
eliminating the Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule
“potentially could increase minority ownership of newspapers
and broadcast stations.” 2017 Reconsideration Order, 32 FCC Rcd.,
at 9823 (emphasis added). Based on the record, the Commission
concluded that repealing or modifying the three rules was not
likely to harm minority and female ownership. See id. , at
9822, 9830, 9839.

															In challenging the 2017 Reconsideration Order in
this Court, Prometheus does not seriously dispute the FCC’s
conclusion that the existing rules no longer serve the agency’s
public interest goals of competition, localism, and viewpoint
diversity. Rather, Prometheus targets the FCC’s assessment that
altering the ownership rules was not likely to harm minority and
female ownership.

															Prometheus asserts that the FCC relied on flawed
data in assessing the likely impact of changing the rules on
minority and female ownership. Prometheus further argues that the
FCC ignored superior data available in the record.

															Prometheus initially points to two data sets on
which the FCC relied in the 2016 Order and the 2017 Reconsideration
Order. Those data sets measured the number of minority-owned media
outlets before and after the Local Television Ownership Rule and
the Local Radio Ownership Rule were relaxed in the 1990s. Together,
the data sets showed a slight decrease in the number of
minority-owned media outlets immediately after the rules were
relaxed, followed by an eventual increase in later years. The 2016
Order cited those data sets and explained that the number of
minority-owned media outlets had increased over time. But the FCC
added that there was no record evidence suggesting that past
changes to the ownership rules had caused minority ownership levels
to increase. See 31 FCC Rcd., at 9894–9895; id., at
9911–9912.

															In the 2017 Reconsideration Order, the FCC
referred to the 2016 Order’s analysis of those data sets. The FCC
stated that data in the record suggested that the previous
relaxations of the Local Television Ownership and Local Radio
Ownership Rules “have not resulted in reduced levels of minority
and female ownership.” 2017 Reconsideration Order, 32 FCC Rcd., at
9831; see also id., at 9823; id., at 9839. The FCC
further explained that “no party” had “presented contrary evidence
or a compelling argument demonstrating why” altering the rules
would have a different impact today. Id., at 9839; see also id. , at 9823, and n. 138; id., at 9831, and n. 201.
The FCC therefore concluded that “the record provides no
information to suggest” that eliminating or modifying the existing
rules would harm minority and female ownership. Id., at
9831; see also id., at 9823; id., at 9839.

															Prometheus insists that the FCC’s numerical
comparison was overly simplistic and that the data sets were
materially incomplete. But the FCC acknowledged the gaps in the
data. And despite repeatedly asking for data on the issue, the
Commission received no other data on minority ownership and no data
at all on female ownership levels. See 2016 Order, 31 FCC Rcd., at
9894–9895, nn. 211–212; id. , at 9911, n. 325; 2017
Reconsideration Order, 32 FCC Rcd., at 9822–9823, and n. 138
(incorporating 2016 Order’s discussion of data sets); id., at 9831, and n. 201 (same); id. , at 9839, and n. 243 (same).
The FCC therefore relied on the data it had (and the absence of any
countervailing evidence) to predict that changing the rules was not
likely to harm minority and female ownership.

															Prometheus also asserts that countervailing—and
superior—evidence was in fact in the record, and that the FCC
ignored that evidence. Prometheus identifies two studies submitted
to the FCC by Free Press, a media reform group. Those studies
purported to show that past relaxations of the ownership rules and
increases in media market concentration had led to decreases in
minority and female ownership levels. According to Prometheus, the
Free Press studies undercut the FCC’s prediction that its rule
changes were unlikely to harm minority and female ownership.

															The FCC did not ignore the Free Press studies.
The FCC simply interpreted them differently. In particular, in the
2016 Order, the Commission explained that its data sets and the
Free Press studies showed the same long-term increase in minority
ownership after the Local Television Ownership and Local Radio
Ownership Rules were relaxed. 31 FCC Rcd., at 9895, and n. 215; id., at 9912, and n. 329. Moreover, as counsel for
Prometheus forthrightly acknowledged at oral argument, the Free
Press studies were purely backward-looking, and offered no
statistical analysis of the likely future effects of the FCC’s
proposed rule changes on minority and female ownership. See Tr. of
Oral Arg. 75–76.

															In short, the FCC’s analysis was reasonable and
reasonably explained for purposes of the APA’s deferential
arbitrary-and-capricious standard. The FCC considered the record
evidence on competition, localism, viewpoint diversity, and
minority and female ownership, and reasonably concluded that the
three ownership rules no longer serve the public interest. The FCC
reasoned that the historical justifications for those ownership
rules no longer apply in today’s media market, and that permitting
efficient combinations among radio stations, television stations,
and newspapers would benefit consumers. The Commission further
explained that its best estimate, based on the sparse record
evidence, was that repealing or modifying the three rules at issue
here was not likely to harm minority and female ownership. The APA
requires no more.[ 3 ]

															To be sure, in assessing the effects on minority
and female ownership, the FCC did not have perfect empirical or
statistical data. Far from it. But that is not unusual in
day-to-day agency decisionmaking within the Executive Branch. The
APA imposes no general obligation on agencies to conduct or
commission their own empirical or statistical studies. Cf. Fox
Television , 556 U. S., at 518–520; Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc. , 435 U.S.
519 , 524 (1978). And nothing in the Telecommunications Act (or
any other statute) requires the FCC to conduct its own empirical or
statistical studies before exercising its discretion under Section
202(h). Here, the FCC repeatedly asked commenters to submit
empirical or statistical studies on the relationship between the
ownership rules and minority and female ownership. See, e.g., In re 2014 Quadrennial Review , 29 FCC
Rcd., at 4460, and n. 595. Despite those requests, no commenter
produced such evidence indicating that changing the rules was
likely to harm minority and female ownership. In the absence of
additional data from commenters, the FCC made a reasonable
predictive judgment based on the evidence it had. See State
Farm , 463 U. S., at 52.

															In light of the sparse record on minority and
female ownership and the FCC’s findings with respect to
competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity, we cannot say that
the agency’s decision to repeal or modify the ownership rules fell
outside the zone of reasonableness for purposes of the
APA.[ 4 ]

															*  *  *

															We reverse the judgment of the U. S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. It is so ordered. Notes 1 The FCC currently has two
other ownership rules that are subject to its quadrennial Section
202(h) review: (1) the Local Radio Ownership Rule, which limits the
number of radio stations that an entity may own in a single market,
and (2) the Dual Network Rule, which prohibits mergers among the
top four television broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC).
The FCC has one additional ownership rule, the National Television
Ownership Rule, which is not subject to review under Section
202(h). That rule limits the number of television stations that a
single entity may own nationwide. Those other rules are not at
issue in this case. 2 2017 Reconsideration
Order, 32 FCC Rcd., at 9822 (“We find that repealing the”
Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule “will not have a material
impact on minority and female ownership”); id., at 9830
(“[W]e find that the record fails to demonstrate that eliminating
the Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rule is likely to harm
minority and female ownership”); id., at 9839 (“We find that
the modifications we adopt to the Local Television Ownership Rule
are not likely to harm minority and female
ownership”). 3 Because we hold that the
Third Circuit’s judgment must be reversed under ordinary principles
of arbitrary-and-capricious review, we need not reach the industry
petitioners’ alternative argument that the text of Section 202(h)
does not authorize (or at least does not require) the FCC to
consider minority and female ownership when the Commission conducts
its quadrennial reviews. We also need not consider the industry
petitioners’ related argument that the FCC, in its Section 202(h)
review of an ownership rule, may not consider minority and female
ownership unless promoting minority and female ownership was part
of the FCC’s original basis for that ownership rule. 4 The Third Circuit also
vacated the FCC’s separate 2018 Incubator Order and the 2016
Order’s definition of “eligible entity.” But the Third Circuit did
not offer any independent reasons for doing so. Instead, it vacated
those agency actions based solely on its conclusion that the FCC
failed to adequately consider minority and female ownership in the
2017 Reconsideration Order. Because we reverse the judgment of the
Third Circuit as to the 2017 Reconsideration Order, it follows that
the Third Circuit’s judgment as to the Incubator Order and
“eligible entity” definition is also reversed. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

															_________________

															Nos. 19–1231 and 19–1241

															_________________

															FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,
et al., PETITIONERS

															19–1231 v. PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT,
et al.

															NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS,
et al., PETITIONERS

															19–1241 v. PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT,
et al.

															on writs of certiorari to the united states
court of appeals for the third circuit

															[April 1, 2021]

															Justice Thomas, concurring.

															As the Court correctly holds, the Federal
Communications Commission’s orders were not arbitrary and
capricious. Based on the record evidence available, the FCC
reasonably concluded that modifying its broadcast ownership rules
would not harm minority and female ownership of broadcast media. I
write separately to note another, independent reason why reversal
is warranted: The Third Circuit improperly imposed nonstatutory
procedural requirements on the FCC by forcing it to consider
ownership diversity in the first place.

															The FCC had no obligation to consider minority
and female ownership. Nothing in §202(h) of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 directs the FCC to consider rates of minority and
female ownership. See note following 47 U. S. C. §303
(requiring the FCC simply to consider “ ‘the public interest
as the result of competition’ ”). Nor could any court force
the FCC to consider ownership diversity: Courts have no authority
to impose “judge-made procedur[es]” on agencies. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn. , 575 U.S. 92, 102 (2015).

															Disregarding these limits, the Third Circuit
imposed on the FCC a nonstatutory requirement to consider minority
and female ownership. The court first did so in 2004 when it
vacated the FCC’s modification of its Local Television Ownership
Rule, faulting the FCC for “failing to mention anything about the
effect this change would have on potential minority station
owners.” 373 F.3d 372 , 420 (2004). It then directed the FCC on remand to
“consider . . . proposals for enhancing ownership
opportunities for women and minorities.” Id ., at 435, n. 82;
accord, 652 F.3d 431, 471 (2011) (reiterating that its “prior
remand requir[ed] the Commission to consider the effect of its
rules on minority and female ownership”). Repeating this error in
2016, the Third Circuit mandated that the FCC, “in addition to
§202(h)’s requirement . . . , include a determination
about ‘the effect of the rules on minority and female
ownership.’ ” 824 F.3d 33, 54, n. 13 (quoting 652
F. 3d, at 471; brackets omitted).

															Respondents try to defend the Third Circuit’s
ruling by noting that the FCC has previously discussed ownership
diversity when considering its ownership rules. They contend that
the FCC thus believed that a purpose of those rules is to promote
minority and female ownership. And because an agency cannot “depart
from a prior policy sub silentio ,” FCC v. Fox
Television Stations, Inc. , 556 U.S.
502 , 515 (2009), they argue that the FCC either had to consider
ownership diversity or expressly repudiate its prior policy. That
argument fails because the FCC’s ownership rules—unlike some of its non ownership rules—were never designed to foster ownership
diversity.

															From its infancy, the FCC has generally focused
on consumers, not producers. The year after it was established, the
agency that would later become the FCC made clear that
“ ‘emphasis must be first and foremost on the interest, the
convenience, and the necessity of the listening public, and not on
the interest, convenience, or necessity of the individual
broadcaster.’ ” FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting
Co. , 309 U.S.
134 , 139, n. 2 (1940) (quoting a 1928 agency
document).

															The FCC kept true to that design when
promulgating ownership rules. For example, when it created the
Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule at issue here, the agency
explained that its “ownership rules rest on two foundations: the
twin goals of diversity of viewpoints and economic competition,”
and that viewpoint diversity is the “higher” policy. 50
F. C. C. 2d 1046, 1074 (1975); see also 22
F. C. C. 2d 306, 313, ¶25 (1970) (stating that the
“principal purpose” of the Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rule is
“promot[ing] diversity of viewpoints” and a secondary purpose is
“promot[ing] competition”). To these two consumer-focused goals,
the FCC has also added a third: localism. 18 FCC Rcd. 13620, 13624,
¶8, 13645, ¶81 (2003). None of these objectives advances
demographic diversity of owners for the sake of owners.

															To be sure, the FCC has sometimes considered
minority and female ownership of broadcast media when discussing
ownership rules. Time after time, however, it has viewed those
forms of diversity not “as policy goals in and of themselves, but
as proxies for viewpoint diversity.” 17 FCC Rcd. 18503, 18519, ¶41,
and n. 116, 18521, ¶50 (2002); accord, e.g., 18 FCC Rcd., at
13774, ¶389 (“diversity of ownership promotes diversity of
viewpoints”); id., at 13636, ¶51, 13760, ¶355 (similar); 10
FCC Rcd. 2788, ¶¶1–2 (1995) (“promoting minority ownership of
broadcasting and cable television facilities serves to enhance the
diversity of viewpoints presented”). The FCC has also said that
ownership diversity “promote[s] competition.” Id. , at 2789,
¶6; accord, 22 F. C. C. 2d, at 313, ¶25. And although the FCC has
occasionally used language that, read in isolation, could suggest a
freestanding goal of promoting ownership diversity, e.g., 17
FCC Rcd., at 18521, ¶50 (“[T]he Commission has historically used
the ownership rules to foster ownership by diverse groups, such as
minorities, women and small businesses”), these comments must be
viewed in the light of the FCC’s repeated statements that “the core
Commission goal [is] maximizing the diversity of points of view
available to the public” and that “promoting minority [and female]
ownership of broadcasting and cable television facilities serves”
this core goal. E.g., 10 FCC Rcd., at 2788, ¶¶1–2.

															Even while trying to abide by the Third
Circuit’s improper mandate, the FCC clarified in this proceeding
that it considered ownership diversity a potential means to pursue
viewpoint diversity, not a freestanding goal of its ownership
rules. To cite just a few examples, in its 2016 order the FCC
explained that it “has a long history of promulgating rules and
regulations intended to promote diversity of ownership among
broadcast licensees, and thereby foster a diversity of
voices.” App. 335 (emphasis added). It afforded certain companies
waivers from various rules to “serve our broader goal of diversity
of ownership, and thus viewpoint diversity.” Id., at
337 (emphasis added). And it noted that it could not promulgate a
race-conscious regulation without first “demonstrat[ing] a
connection between minority ownership and viewpoint diversity” that
would “satisfy strict scrutiny.” Id., at 397; cf. Metro
Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC , 497 U.S.
547 , 566–568 (1990) (upholding race-conscious “minority
ownership policies” because they were “substantially related to the
achievement of . . . broadcast diversity”— i.e., viewpoint diversity), overruled by Adarand Constructors,
Inc. v. Peña , 515 U.S.
200 , 227 (1995) (requiring strict scrutiny for “all racial
classifications”).

															The Third Circuit erred by disregarding this
history. For example, when the FCC modified its Local Television
Ownership Rule in 2003, the court faulted the FCC for “failing to
mention anything about the effect this change would have on
potential minority station owners.” 373 F. 3d, at 420. But as with
its other ownership rules, the stated “objectives” for that rule
were fostering viewpoint diversity and competition. 14 FCC Rcd.
12903, 12910–12912, ¶¶15, 17 (1999).[ 1 ]

															Here, as in 2003, once the FCC determined that
none of its policy objectives for ownership rules—viewpoint
diversity, competition, and localism—justified retaining its rules,
the FCC was free to modify or repeal them without considering
ownership diversity. Indeed, the FCC has long been clear that “it
would be inappropriate to retain multiple ownership regulations for
the sole purpose of promoting minority ownership.” 100
F. C. C. 2d 74, 94, ¶45 (1985). The Third Circuit had no
authority to require the FCC to consider minority and female
ownership. So in future reviews, the FCC is under no obligation to
do so.[ 2 ] Notes 1 The FCC reiterated these
objectives when modifying the rule in 2003. 18 FCC Rcd. 13620,
13708, ¶¶225–226. 2 The FCC has recently
questioned the validity of the assumption that ownership diversity
promotes viewpoint diversity. 32 FCC Rcd. 9802, 9810, ¶15, n. 49
(2017). Its previous acceptance of that assumption in no way
precludes the FCC from rejecting it in the future.

Summary:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has the authority to regulate broadcast media ownership to promote competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity. In 2017, the FCC repealed or modified three ownership rules, concluding they no longer served the public interest. A non-profit group, Prometheus Radio Project, challenged the decision, arguing it would harm minority and female ownership of media outlets. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and vacated the FCC's order.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the Third Circuit, stating that the FCC is not required to consider minority and female ownership if its policy objectives for ownership rules (competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity) are not met. The Court clarified that ownership diversity is a means to pursue viewpoint diversity, not a standalone goal. The FCC is free to modify or repeal rules that no longer serve their stated objectives without considering ownership diversity.