It is as though, in 1848, the lab reports back from California's streams revealed that prospectors had only found some speckled yellow quartz. Or in 1899, the day before the pistol shot was to launch the land rush onto the previously Indian territory of Oklahoma, a court ruled that the Indians could keep the state.

It was a big, fat, whopping "never mind."

Last week, big newspaper companies, broadcast media conglomerates, and their lawyers and brokers and bankers and boards, had all lined up the next big media buying frenzy. Friday, Sep. 5 was to be the day that the FCC's controversial media ownership deregulation rules, fiercely opposed by consumer groups and facing a partial challenge in Congress, were to be enacted. Newspaper companies could now own broadcast stations in the same city, and vice versa; networks could now buy more stations, or other networks. As happened in the days and weeks after enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, this latest wave of media ownership deregulation was expected to result in a lot of big chains swallowing other big and medium chains. Smaller chains prepared to absorb the last of the independents. A lot of money was poised to change hands, none of it slated to improve or localize the quality of what we watch and listen to.

And then a three-judge federal court in Philadelphia called the whole thing off Thursday, in a ruling as sharply worded as it is surprising.

Technically, what the Philadelphia court issued was an injunction. But the plaintiffs--a group of small radio stations, the Prometheus Project LPFM folks, journalist groups, and the National Council of Churches--considered this injunction a long shot specifically because such rulings are only issued when the court believes the plaintiffs are likely to win on the merits of the case. The court order itself didn't comment on the merits, but reasoned that the case was too important for a quick decision and that the old rules would work just fine until that decision was reached.

The battle lines on this case are clear enough; small, independently owned radio stations are already as endangered as any small town department store when Wal-Mart moves in next door. The generic garbage on Seattle's commercial radio and TV stations (all owned by a handful of media giants) is evidence enough. On the their side, the FCC was joined in its arguments by briefs filed by all four of the major television networks. The four networks have also undertaken a fierce congressional lobbying campaign to have the new rules preserved.

The legal case was particularly surprising because FCC Chair Michael Powell, who has made it his mission in the three years since Bush named him chair to push this deregulation into effect, has repeatedly justified it by cited rulings by the DC federal court of appeals that have called broadcast ownership limits into question. The Philadelphia district court is moving in a different direction. Should its ruling follow through in striking down the FCC's loosened ownership limits, particularly given the money (and, oh yes, public interest) at stake, the discrepancy between the district courts is likely to be resolved at the US Supreme Court and in Congress.

That, ultimately, is a political battle. This is often the case with major court decisions. It is why the neocons surrounding the Bush Administration have been so livid at delays in the confirmation of some of Dubya's more controversial court appointments; it is why the separate district actions have reflected the political momentum at their respective times. In its first two years, the Bush Administration's pro-business sensibilities were rarely challenged, particularly inside the Beltway; in the last year, the grass roots media democracy movement that has taken on Powell's deregulatory regulations has gained far more political clout than anyone expected. The two district courts have followed suit.

Conservatives have consistently prioritized court appointments, particularly in the federal system, for 25 years. From Reagan through Bush Senior, Clinton, and especially now with Dubya, courts have been stacked with ever-more-reactionary and business-friendly appointees. Judges that prioritize civil liberties or social justice are increasingly rare, often now among the oldest in their districts.

For all that, court rulings and judges are still unpredictable, capable both of bowing to public pressure and of upholding the rule of law in the face of political pressure. The withdrawal of reactionary Miguel Estrada from a federal court nomination, on the same day as the deregulation ruling, will once again dominate the ravings of AM talk dittoheads specifically because our court system remains the one leg of the federal tripod capable of defending our country's freedoms against concerted political attacks from the right.

As Bush revs up his campaign for a second term, three Supreme Court justices are in their 70s, and another, the liberal John Paul Stevens, is in his 80s. If elected in 2004, Dubya could have the opportunity over the following four years to nominate several reactionary judges to lifetime Supreme Court appointments.

It's a prospect well worth keeping in mind as we contemplate which of our political and legal institutions has the backbone to prevent our democracy--like our public airwaves--from being sold off to the highest bidders.