We all remember what we learned from “Schoolhouse Rock”: Congress writes laws, the president enforces them, and the courts step in to resolve disputes.

Executive agencies can interpret statutes and set enforcement priorities, but they cannot change or override a statutory mandate. It’s been this way since the Constitution was written (and since “Schoolhouse Rock” livened up Saturday mornings!) and it’s true today. Agencies cannot steal Congress’ power by ignoring or overturning statutory law.

Yet that’s exactly what the Federal Communications Commission is planning to do when it votes to eliminate the current 39% “ownership cap,” which limits the size of U.S. TV station groups. It’s a completely lawless exercise that will undermine competition and jobs, deter innovation, drive up prices and replace relevant local news with canned national storylines.

This anticipated result isn’t a close case, and it’s not a partisan or a political one either.  Alongside a chorus of Democratic leaders and civil rights organizations, a wide range of conservatives from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to respected Supreme Court litigators also have warned that the FCC lacks power to “eliminate” a congressional requirement like the 39% cap.

It’s easy to see why. The cap was a response to growing media consolidation in the 1980s and 1990s. As station groups grew larger by swallowing up competitors in different cities, communities around the country became alarmed about centralization of the news, and the loss of local voices and perspectives, and rampant station closures and job losses in broadcast journalism.  

Ultimately, in 2004, Congress acted to protect broadcast competition and localism by passing a statute stating no TV station group could reach more than 39% of American households.  

That percentage was no accident or afterthought. Former FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, who negotiated the figure as a Republican congressional staffer, has explained that it was a carefully negotiated compromise designed to “set the national audience reach limit at 39% once and for all.”

Over the years, disputes have arisen over the best way to determine a station’s “audience reach,” as well as side issues such as the treatment of channels that use different broadcast frequencies and technologies. No one seriously questioned the core 39% limitation. In multiple transactions, the FCC has enforced the cap by requiring merging TV groups to divest enough stations to get under the cap. These divestitures have helped bring about new entrants in broadcast station ownership and aided smaller groups in competing in their markets.

That’s a good thing. In this age of centralization and consolidation, the cap helps preserve one of the last areas of competition and media diversity, ensuring that trusted, local voices don’t get merged out of existence and that journalism remains a viable path for the next generation of reporters and producers. All communities, regardless of demographics, income, geography or political affiliation, need relevant, local perspectives and coverage — exactly what Congress sought to defend when it passed the 39% audience reach limitation.

Abandoning that limit would unleash a flood of mergers, station closures and centralization, leaving millions of Americans at the mercy of distant corporate giants. Smaller and independent broadcasters, including those serving diverse, underserved audiences and communities, would be especially vulnerable. Consumers would suffer too, forced to pay higher cable or satellite TV bills as bigger, more powerful stations demand higher “retransmission” consent fees for their free local channels and shows.

One need only look at the pending mega-merger of Nexstar and Tegna to see what’s at stake. That massive deal proposed creating a nationwide broadcast goliath with more than 260 stations, reaching 80% of American households. The FCC tried to rush through that deal by unlawfully claiming the power to “waive” the 39% cap, but more than a dozen states’ attorneys general went to court to stop the merger, winning a preliminary injunction that puts the deal on hold until courts can fully evaluate the threat it poses to consumers, local news and consumer prices.  

Of course, Congress has already weighed in on those concerns by enacting a mandatory statutory cap that bars deals like this from being approved in the first place.

The FCC should abandon its unconstitutional plan to override Congress’ clear direction in limiting TV station chain consolidation. If not, then as any “Schoolhouse Rock” fan could explain, it’ll find itself on the losing end in court soon enough.

Robert Branson is the president and CEO of the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.