FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL.

v.

FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., ET AL.; AND FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. V. ABC, INC., ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (U.S. 2012)
  …ining that it was bound by its Fox decision striking down the entirety of the Commission’s indecency policy. See 404 Fed. Appx., at 533. The Government sought review of both judgments, see Brief for Petitioners 1, and this Court granted certiorari, 564 U. S. 1036 (2011). These are the cases before us. [*253] II A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required. See Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.…
• Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (U.S. 2012)
  …r the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 421 Fed. Appx. [*376] 920, 921 (2011) (per curiam) (“Congress granted state courts exclusive jurisdiction over private actions under the [TCPA].” (quoting Nicholson, 136 F. 3d, at 1287-1288)). We granted certiorari, 564 U. S. 1036 (2011), to resolve a split among the Circuits as to whether Congress granted state courts exclusive jurisdiction over private actions brought under the TCPA. Compare Murphey v. Lanier, 204 F. 3d 911, 915 (CA9 2000) (U. S. district courts lack federa…
• Martel v. Clair, 565 U.S. 648 (U.S. 2012)
  …ight have been appointed” in June 2005, and to allow him to make whatever submissions he would have made then, including a motion to amend Clair’s habeas petition in light of new evidence. Id., at 279. We granted certiorari to review this judgment, 564 U. S. 1036 (2011), and now reverse. HH We first consider the standard that district courts should use to adjudicate federal habeas petitioners’ motions to substitute counsel in capital cases. The question arises because the relevant statute, 18 U. S. C. § 3…