In Federal Communications Commission V

In Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations Inc., the FCC had followed a restrained enforcement policy for profanity used on television. It used a two-prong test to judge indecency violations. The FCC also offered a three-part test to determine whether or not material was patently offensive. In 2003 Bono's acceptance speech at an awards show included the use of the word f-k, and the FCC ruled that the word did not violate the indecency policy. After that, the FCC instituted a zero-tolerance rule for certain words no matter what the circumstance. In 2006 Fox was fined when presenters at an award show used expletives similar to Bono's usage in 2003. Fox brought an action to have the new standard invalidated. The Supreme Court held that:

A) the FCC's new standard was not valid because its standards require congressional approval.
B) the FCC's actions were not arbitrary and capricious and its reasoning for expanding the scope of its enforcement activity was rational and consistent with reasoned decision making.
C) the FCC had not supplied any reasoned analysis for the radical departure from its previous policies.
D) the new standard was invalid because the FCC lacked empirical evidence in its decision making.