Laserfiche WebLink
- 13 - <br />authorities may conduct a coape.itivQ bid.'.:r.Q ?rocess <br />and award the franchise to a Singh bidder. But where <br />the market would support more than one system, then <br />■ city's efforts to artificially limit the number of <br />operators would constitute ■ prior restraint in violation <br />of the First Amendment. <br />This decision was appealed to the Eighth Circuit. <br />oral arguments were heard on March 10, 1985, but a <br />decision has not yet been issued. <br />B. Tele-Communications of KeY-West Case <br />Tele-Communications of Key -West, Inc. (hereinafter <br />"TCI") and its predecessor - in- interest provided cable <br />service to Homestead Air Force Base for 10 years. In <br />1983, the Air Force requested bids for cable service <br />from other operators. It awarded an exclusive service <br />contract to one of these companies and ordered TCI to <br />remove its cables and other equipment from the base's <br />cable right-of-way by December 31, 1963. <br />TCI filed suit, requesting a preliminary <br />in)unctlon; an order reyuitiuy tt,e A:: :o:ce t-� - l:ct <br />TCI to leave its cable equipment where it was; and a <br />declaratory judgment that enforcement of the Air Force <br />order would violate TCI's First and Fifth Amendment <br />rights as well as the Sherman Antitrust Act. <br />The District Court granted the Ai: Force's motion <br />to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. <br />Me United States Court of Appeals for the Disci:ic.t <br />of Columbia Circuit held that the District Court had <br />erroneously dismissed TCI's First and Fifth Amendment <br />claims. leg -Communications Key West v. U.S., 757 F.2d <br />1330 (D.C. Cir. 1985). <br />The Court employed public forum analysis to reach <br />this result, but noted the confusion in the law concerning <br />the appropriate First Amendment standard and emphasized <br />that a different First Amendment analysis might be <br />preferable. <br />Because this case involved an appeal from a i <br />dismissal for failure to state a claim, the Court did <br />not have to decide if the cable right-of-way in fact <br />constituted a public forum. TCI alleged in its complaint <br />that there were no reasons -- practicz! Cr !t7ml -- <br />why two television companies could not simultaneously <br />