Corn-Revere: Courts Will Likely Correct FCC Overreach

Framed as a letter to Carr, the column is called “A Plea for Institutional Modesty.” Now chief counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Corn-Revere served under acting FCC Commissioner James Quello, a moderate Democrat. “If I were your adviser, this is not how I would want history to remember you,” Corn-Revere wrote, calling Carr’s first weeks as chairman “jarring” when compared with his past statements as a commissioner on free speech and the role of the FCC. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the FCC’s rules don’t give it authority over the types of programming broadcasters can offer, Corn-Revere noted. “In 2025, any aggressive action by the FCC to regulate broadcast programming would provide an opportunity to challenge whatever remains of the public interest standard as a reason to treat broadcasters differently from other media,” he said. “FCC meddling in editorial decisions regarding political coverage and news judgment would provide an easy case for limiting the FCC’s authority.” Corn-Revere also wrote that Carr can’t get around the limits on FCC authority by exerting informal pressure on entities or “jawboning.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit “is keenly aware that the FCC can abuse its authority in this way and has limited ‘raised eyebrow’ tactics in past cases,” he said, adding that SCOTUS has also recently reaffirmed that government officials violate the First Amendment by using threats to restrict speech. “Bottom line, given your position, writing threatening letters may be enough to get you into constitutional hot water.” Governmental officials “who have tried to use their power to muzzle the press for short-term political gain have not been treated well by history.” You swore an oath "to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and you know very well how these things work. You might at least consider not actively reinforcing uninformed social media rants.” The FCC didn’t comment.