# Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

> District Court, District of Columbia · January 5, 1993 · 810 F. Supp. 1308

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641712

## Case

- **Full name:** TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Et Al., Defendants; DANIELS CABLEVISION, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant; TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P., Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Et Al., Defendants; NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Et Al., Defendants; DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Et Al., Defendants
- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** January 5, 1993
- **Citations:** 810 F. Supp. 1308
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sporkin
- **Judges:** Williams, Sporkin, Jackson
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641712

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding supplemental jurisdiction improper where “plaintiffs … identified no links between [the core statutory claim and challenges to other sections of the statute] so close as to bring their attacks on the latter squarely within the ‘same case or controversy,’” and there was…
- describing § 1367(a) as a threshold inquiry but applying § 1367(c)(2) despite doubts regarding the relatedness of state to federal claims
- noting that § 1367 incorporated Gibbs test

## Opinion text

SPORKIN, District Judge, concurring.
I concur in the result. I believe that whether a three judge statutory court established under Section 23 of the Cable Act has jurisdiction to consider certain other related claims is strictly a question of discretion.
I concur with the majority’s decision in this case to exercise this discretion by declining to consider the various pendent claims put forth by certain of the parties. I believe it is prudent for this Court to focus only on the Section 4 and 5 challenges to the Cable Act and to refer the balance of the constitutional and other claims to a traditional single judge court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641712. Public record. Not legal advice.