Arksansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes

523 U.S. 666 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A state-owned public television broadcaster decided to sponsor political debates, and the staff decided to limit participation in the debates to the major party candidates or any other candidate who had strong popular support. Ralph Forbes was certified as an independent candidate qualified to appear on the ballot. Forbes was a perennial candidate who had sought, without success, a number of elected offices in Arkansas. He wrote to AETC requesting permission to participate in the debate. AETC denied Forbes' request, explaining that AETC had 'made a bona fide journalistic judgment that our viewers would be best served by limiting the debate' to the candidates already invited. Forbes filed suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages. Forbes claimed he was entitled to participate in the debate under both the First Amendment and 47 U.S.C. § 315, which affords political candidates a limited right of access to television airtime. The District Court denied the request, as did the United States Court of Appeals. En banc, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Forbes' statutory claim, holding that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court reversed, however, the dismissal of Forbes' First Amendment claim. It held that AETC is a state actor. Forbes had a qualified right of access created by AETC's sponsorship of a debate, and that AETC must have [had] a legitimate reason to exclude him strong enough to survive First Amendment scrutiny. On remand, the District Court found that the debate was a nonpublic forum, and the issue became whether Forbes' views were the reason for his exclusion. AETC showed that Forbes was excluded because he lacked any campaign organization, had not generated appreciable voter support, and was not regarded as a serious candidate by the press covering the election. The jury found that AETC's decision to exclude Forbes had not been influenced by political pressure or disagreement with his views. The District Court entered judgment for AETC. The Court of Appeals again reversed holding that the debate was a public forum, to which all candidates 'legally qualified to appear on the ballot' had a presumptive right of access. Applying strict scrutiny, the court determined that AETC's assessment of Forbes' 'political viability' was neither a 'compelling nor a narrowly tailored' reason for excluding him from the debate.