Term: 2012
Docket: 11-1545
City Of Arlington, Texas, Et Al., Petitioners v. Federal Communications Commission Et Al.
- Pro
11-1545 ARLINGTON, TX, ET AL. V. FCC, ET AL. DECISION BELOW: 668 F.3d 229 CONSOLIDATED WITH 11-1547 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION IN NO. 11-1545. CERT. GRANTED 10/5/2012 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case involves a challenge to the FCC's jurisdiction to implement §332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, titled "Preservation of Local Zoning Authority." Section 332(c) (7) imposes certain limitations on State and local zoning authority over the placement of wireless service facilities, but authorizes the FCC to address only one of these limitations; it states that no other provision "in this Act" may ''limit'' or "affect" State and local authority over wireless facilities placement. The FCC concluded that other provisions "in this Act" authorize it to adopt national zoning standards to implement §332(c)(7). The Fifth Circuit deferred to the FCC's jurisdictional determination applying Chevron U. S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), but acknowledged that "[the Supreme Court has not yet conclusively resolved the question of whether Chevron applies in the context of an agency's determination of its own statutory jurisdiction, and the circuit courts of appeals have adopted different approaches to this issue." The case presents two questions: 1. Whether, contrary to the decisions of at least two other circuits, and in light of this Court's guidance, a court should apply Chevron to review an agency's determination of its own jurisdiction; and 2. Whether the FCC may use its general authority under the Communications Act to limit or affect State and local zoning authority over the placement of personal wireless service facilities. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-60039
In the case of City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission (2012), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the FCC, affirming its authority to interpret and implement provisions within its own jurisdiction. The dispute arose when cities challenged an FCC order that set a "shot clock" for local governments to process applications for wireless tower sitings - essentially limiting how long they could take before making decisions on these applications. The cities argued that this overstepped federal boundaries into local zoning authority. However, the court held by a 6-3 majority that administrative agencies like FCC have leeway to interpret ambiguous terms in laws they are charged with enforcing; therefore, courts should defer to such interpretations unless they are unreasonable or contrary to statutory intent.
In the dissenting opinion for the case City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission (2012), Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito, argued that courts should not defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute defining its own jurisdiction. The dissenters believed that such deference would allow agencies to expand their power without any checks or balances from other branches of government. They contended that it is up to Congress and the judiciary - not federal agencies themselves - to determine what powers those agencies have under law. This view contrasts with Chevron deference which allows administrative agencies latitude in interpreting ambiguous statutes they are charged with administering.
