SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
July, 25 2018, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Timothy Karr: 201-533-8838,,tkarr@freepress.net
D.C. Circuit Dismisses Challenge to FCC's Obsolete UHF Discount
On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Free Press and other petitioners seeking to overturn the FCC's reinstated "UHF discount" had not established their standing in court to sue the agency over this rule change.
Free Press had filed a challenge, alongside Common Cause, Media Alliance, the Media Mobilizing Project, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, Prometheus Radio Project and the United Church of Christ Office of Communication, Inc., against the FCC's April 2017 decision to reinstate the discount.
WASHINGTON
On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Free Press and other petitioners seeking to overturn the FCC's reinstated "UHF discount" had not established their standing in court to sue the agency over this rule change.
Free Press had filed a challenge, alongside Common Cause, Media Alliance, the Media Mobilizing Project, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, Prometheus Radio Project and the United Church of Christ Office of Communication, Inc., against the FCC's April 2017 decision to reinstate the discount.
The groups, represented in court by the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University Law Center, argued that the UHF discount is a technically obsolete rule the FCC restored in defiance of the agency's central mandate to promote diversity, competition and localism over the public airwaves.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai promoted the return of the discount, an arcane loophole that allows broadcast-station conglomerates to evade ownership limits by counting just half of their UHF stations' true audience reach toward the congressionally mandated 39 percent national ownership cap.
The court made its judgment today without considering supplemental filings by Free Press and Prometheus Radio Project showing clear standing in this case.
Free Press Deputy Director and Senior Counsel Jessica J. Gonzalez made the following statement:
"We're disappointed that this panel of judges refused to rule on the FCC's phony math and poor excuses for the obsolete and harmful UHF discount.
"It's important to remember that this decision does nothing to bless or approve the FCC's unsupported policy changes and legal claims surrounding the reinstatement of the fossilized UHF loophole. It also offers no opinion on Pai's proposal to unlawfully raise the national ownership cap in yet another rulemaking proceeding still pending at the agency.
"All today's ruling suggests is that Free Press and the other petitioners in this case hadn't shown our standing in our very first submissions to the court. We disagree with that decision. It's especially unfortunate that the FCC and the big broadcasters the UHF discount favors chose to put the question of standing in front of the judges, rather than engaging strictly on the merits -- or lack thereof -- in the agency's decision. We're consulting with our fellow petitioners and the lawyers who handled the case to explore what options we might have in court.
"In light of the unexpected good news out of the FCC last week, when it moved to challenge and likely stop the Sinclair-Tribune merger, one of the worst and most immediate abuses of the UHF discount and other FCC mistakes has been averted for the moment. But we need to keep fighting at the FCC, in court and in Congress to promote real diversity, competition and localism in broadcasting.
"Local broadcast television remains the most important local news source for many people, particularly those in low-income and Spanish-speaking communities. The last thing communities need is fewer perspectives -- and more nationally produced, cookie-cutter propaganda masquerading as local news. The UHF discount and other Pai policy decisions have opened the door to a wave of unprecedented consolidation that will harm people across the United States who deserve diverse and locally produced broadcast media."
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
Trump Critics Fear 'Presidency Without Limits' as Supreme Court Hears Tariffs Case
One critic warned a Trump win “will cement a precedent that expands his power as executive in a dangerous and unprecedented way.”
Nov 05, 2025
As the US Supreme Court on Wednesday began hearing arguments on the sweeping powers claimed by President Donald Trump to impose tariffs on foreign goods, many critics warned that the court would create a "presidency without limits" if it ruled in his favor.
In April, Trump unveiled unprecedented tariffs on nearly every nation in the world using powers granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law passed in 1977 that allows the president to regulate international commerce during major emergencies such as wars.
Many Trump critics believe that using this law as the legal foundation of a global tariff regime is a gross abuse of the law's original intent, and are urging the Supreme Court to shut it down.
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at Stand Up America, warned that granting the president this level of authority over the taxation of imported goods would "open the door to broader abuses of power" by emboldening Trump to usurp even more authority from the US Congress.
“We’re already dangerously close to a presidency without limits," he said. "It’s time for the right-wing majority on the court to stand up for our Constitution and serve as a check on Trump’s power, starting with this case."
Josh Orton, president of progressive legal advocacy organization Demand Justice, also said that the tariff case before the Supreme Court "is about far more than an economic debate or a trade-law dispute," given its implications for the separation of powers laid out in the US Constitution.
"Trump is demanding that the court hand him raw power over the economy," said Orton. "If Trump wins here, he won’t just raise costs on American families. He will cement a precedent that expands his power as executive in a dangerous and unprecedented way—letting any president unilaterally rewrite trade law, punish certain industries, harm consumers, or leverage international allies for personal gain."
Leor Tal, campaign director at the progressive advocacy coalition Unrig Our Economy, argued that the Supreme Court wouldn't even need to hear the case on the Trump tariffs if Congress reasserted its authority given under the US Constitution to levy taxes.
“As the Supreme Court hears a case with implications for whether Americans can afford groceries, school supplies, and more, people will remember that Republicans in Congress could end these disastrous tariffs today and should have done so a long time ago," she said. “These tariffs are nothing more than a tax on working Americans, and Republicans in Congress have voted time and again to keep them in place... Republicans in Congress must act immediately to repeal Trump’s tariffs and finally put working people first."
During Wednesday's hearing on the tariffs case, conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns about allowing the president to usurp congressional powers in perpetuity by issuing emergency declarations that Congress must then vote to revoke before it can resume its duties outlined in Article I of the US Constitution.
"So Congress, as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president," Gorsuch remarked. "It's a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives."
Sauer tried to counter this by pointing to former President Joe Biden agreeing in 2023 to sign bipartisan legislation ending the national health emergency caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Gorsuch, however, countered that this only occurred with the president's consent, and that it would otherwise take a supermajority to end a declared emergency if the president elected to veto the congressional resolution.
Gorsuch: So congress as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president.. one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives. pic.twitter.com/secLyWMX7H
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 5, 2025
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also grilled Sauer on concerns about separation of powers, and she noted that the Constitution explicitly delegates taxation powers to Congress.
"It's a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax," she said. "You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are. They're generating money from American citizens, revenue."
Justice Sotomayor asks about tariffs being a kind of tax on Americans and compares President Trump's emergency tariff Executive Orders to President Biden's student loan forgiveness policy and a hypothetical climate emergency. pic.twitter.com/nD0MYgVjv3
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 5, 2025
Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing this week, Trump posted a frantic message on his Truth Social platform warning justices that his power to unilaterally impose tariffs was a matter of "life or death" for the United States.
""With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, financial and national security," he claimed. "Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us."
Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said on social media Wednesday that "Trump’s tariffs are sending small businesses to an early grave."
"Trade authority begins and ends with Congress," the senator added. "I’ll keep battling to rein in Trump’s tariff madness and protect small businesses, farmers, and families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Colorado Votes to Tax the Rich to Fund 'Incredibly Popular' Free School Meals
"Colorado sent a clear message tonight: No child should ever have to learn on an empty stomach," said the state Democratic Party.
Nov 05, 2025
Colorado voters on Tuesday handily approved a pair of ballot measures to fully fund free meals for all K-12 public school students, give raises or stipends to scholastic cafeteria workers, and enact grants for schools to buy fresh foods from local farmers.
According to unofficial results published Wednesday morning by the Colorado Secretary of State's office, Proposition LL overwhelmingly passed 64.66% to 35.34%. The proposal allows the state to keep and spend $12.4 million in tax revenue, including interest, already collected under Proposition FF to fund the Healthy School Meals for All Program, a 2022 voter-approved initiative to provide free breakfast and lunch to students and provide food purchasing grants to public schools.
Proposition MM—which raises taxes on households with annual incomes over $300,000 to fund the meals program—was approved 58.07% to 41.93%. The measure is meant to fill funding gaps in Proposition FF and was spurred by US President Donald Trump's signing of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which inflicted the largest-ever cuts in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), largely to pay for tax cuts for the ultrarich and corporations.
“We're relieved that Colorado kids will continue to have access to free meals at school,” Anya Rose, director pf public policy at the advocacy group Hunger Free Colorado, told Colorado Public Radio (CPR) after the measures' passage. “I think that hunger is top of mind for a lot of people right now, and it's really visible for people. And we know that this is an incredibly popular program that is more important, now than ever, since there are so many people struggling to make ends meet and resources have fallen through for a lot.”
Colorado sent a clear message tonight: no child should ever have to learn on an empty stomach.While Republicans in Washington play politics with our families, our food and our health care, Colorado is stepping up, keeping Healthy School Meals for All alive for 600,000 kids.
[image or embed]
— Colorado Democrats 🇺🇸 (@coloradodems.org) November 4, 2025 at 7:51 PM
Joe Kabourek, who managed the Keep Kids Fed campaign, said in a statement: "Thank you to every voter, volunteer, community partner, and endorsing organization who turned out to pass Propositions LL and MM, ensuring every child in Colorado can continue to get a healthy meal at school."
Nine US states have now enacted laws providing free meals to all public school students regardless of family income: California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont. Cities including Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, DC have enacted similar programs.
Betsy Hayes of Denver recalled the cruelty her children faced from other students for needing free school meals.
“It was very embarrassing for them and stigmatizing to them, and I really would like other kids not to have to go through that,” she told CPR.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Backed by Platner Campaign, Maine Voters Reject GOP-Led Attack on Absentee Voting
"This victory belongs to the thousands of volunteers, many of them with our campaign, who left it all on the field to save absentee voting in Maine," said the US Senate candidate.
Nov 05, 2025
With 87% of the vote counted, around two-thirds of Mainers on Tuesday rejected a Republican-backed ballot measure that would have made it harder to vote absentee in a state where more than 370,000 people submitted such ballots last year—a win for democracy that came after US Senate candidate Graham Platner mobilized his supporters to campaign against the proposal.
The oyster farmer and harbormaster is one of multiple Democrats—including term-limited Gov. Janet Mills, who also opposed Question 1—running in the June primary to face longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins next November.
In the lead-up to this year's election, Platner released an animated advertisement and held a major rally in Portland against Question 1, which would have eliminated two days of absentee voting, prohibited requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, ended ongoing absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, banned prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, limited the number of drop boxes, and required voters to show certain photo identification.
"This victory belongs to the thousands of volunteers, many of them with our campaign, who left it all on the field to save absentee voting in Maine," Platner said on social media after the results were announced late Tuesday, confirming that they worked 2,400 canvass shifts and contacted 49,000 voters.
League of Women Voters of Maine called the outcome "a win for voting rights and for Maine voters."
"Question 1 was a voter suppression bill that would have erected unnecessary barriers to voting," said Jen Lancaster, the group's communications director. "A large number of Maine voters depend on absentee voting to cast their ballot. It's important to protect this vital service and not dismantle it piece by piece."
Mills also welcomed its defeat, saying that "once again, Maine people have affirmed their faith in our free, fair, and secure elections, in this case by rejecting a direct attempt to restrict voting rights. Maine has long had one of the highest rates of voter turnout in the nation, in good part due to safe absentee voting—and Maine people tonight have said they want to keep it that way."
The governor also opposed Question 2, the "red flag" gun law approved by about two-thirds of Mainers on Tuesday. Mills said after the election that "I sincerely hope that this measure will strengthen public safety as proponents have argued. My administration will work with law enforcement and the public to implement this new law, along with our existing extreme risk protection law, to best ensure the safety of Maine people."
Platner, a US military veteran who has taught firearms courses, publicly supported Question 2 but did not campaign for or against it. The ballot measure passed after a 2023 mass shooting in Lewiston left 18 people dead, not including the shooter, whose family, friends, and Army Reserve unit all reported concerns about his mental health and access to firearms before the massacre.
"Maine voters have taken the safety of our communities into our own hands by passing commonsense, responsible gun legislation that will save lives and help keep our kids and families safe, not just from the horrors of a tragedy like Lewiston, but from the devastating impacts of everyday gun violence," Nacole Palmer of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition said in a statement after the vote. "Despite years of opposition from the gun lobby and the politicians they back, we've shown that our movement for commonsense, responsible gun ownership is stronger."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular