SCOTUS Majority Finds That Lower Courts Aren't Bound by FCC Decisions
In a 6-3 ruling Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a key Telephone Consumer Protection Act case that lower courts aren’t bound by FCC and other agency decisions. The Hobbs Act gives the appeals courts general jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend or determine the validity of some agency orders, including most FCC orders, according to the decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson. Major telecom trade groups have urged SCOTUS to reject arguments that a lower court can review an FCC decision, saying industry needs the certainty provided by the Hobbs Act (see 2412260037).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
“The Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency’s interpretation of a statute,” said the opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “District courts must independently determine the law’s meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation.”
In addition, “policy concerns about potential disagreement between courts do not override statutory text and traditional administrative law principles,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Circuit splits followed by Supreme Court review are common and do not justify denying judicial review in enforcement proceedings.”
Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissent, saying the decision was wrong based on an incorrect reading of the law and the history of the court. She was joined by the court’s other two progressive justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “The Hobbs Act gives the courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of agency action, meaning that district courts have no jurisdiction to do so,” the dissent said. “There is simply nothing in the law to support today’s result.”