“Congress, of course, is not required to act each time a statute is interpreted erroneously and legislative silence in the face of such interpretation is not necessarily equivalent to legislative approval. However, a consistent administrative interpretation of a statute, shown clearly to have been brought to the attention of Congress and not changed by it, is almost conclusive evidence that the interpretation has congressional approval.” [footnotes omitted]
How later courts described this case
- “Congress, of course, is not required to act each time a statute is interpreted erroneously and legislative silence in the face of such interpretation is not necessarily equivalent to legislative approval. However, a consistent administrative interpretation of a statute, shown clearly to have been brought to the attention of Congress and not changed by it, is almost conclusive evidence that the interpretation has congressional approval.” [footnotes omitted]
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAZELON, Chief Judge
(concurring) :
I concur in the result. Petitioner Kay has not pressed in this court his claim that he was entitled to broadcast time under the fairness doctrine. And in the administrative proceedings, he did not raise, and the Commission did not consider, the question whether petitioner can be deemed to have “opposed” the Republican primary candidates 1 on the ground that Ohio’s election laws permitted any voter, regardless of prior political affiliation, to vote in the American Independent Party primary. 2 Thus the sole question Kay has presented is whether the bare words of Section 315 require that he be granted equal time. On this point — the only issue on which I believe *649 it necessary or wise to express an opinion — I agree with my brethren that in these circumstances neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history compel the result Kay demands.
. Compare Use of Broadcast Facilities by Candidates for Public Office, Part V: When Are Candidates Opposing Candidates, 24 F.C.C.2d 832 , 863 (1970).
. See page 648 of the majority opinion.