Case Brief:
City of Arlington, Texas, Et Al. v. Federal Communications Commission Et Al.
NAME
JOUR 3060
DATE
Title & Citation: City of Arlington, Texas, Et Al. v. Federal Communications Commission Et
Al. 569 U.S. ____ (2013)
Nature of the Case: A petition of review of jurisdiction on Writ of Certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking injunction.
Facts: Wireless networks have to put in proposals from local governments to put in new towers
or antennas. With the Communications Act of 1996, Congress imposed a limitation that these
requests must be responded to “within a reasonable period of time” (5). CTIA, a wireless
company, put a request in to the Federal Communications Commission to define what a
“reasonable period of time” (5) is, since there had previously been lengthy delays. The FCC
responded with a declaratory ruling that 90 days is a reasonable response time for a request to
put a new antenna on a pre-existing tower, and 150 days is reasonable for anything else. The
cities of Arlington and San Antonio, Texas petitioned for review of this ruling, stating that two
other provisions showed that Congress didn’t intend to give authority to the FCC to interpret
those limitation, and that they therefor has overstepped their authority.
Issue: Should the court apply Chevron, and allow an agency to interpret its own jurisdiction,
when dealing with a statute that is somehow ambiguous in nature or content.
Holding & Decision: Yes. The vote was 5-1-3, in favor of the FCC. Scalia delivered the
majority opinion. Scalia stated that when there is confusion about the language of a statute, the
agency that regulates that statute should be deferred to to decide how to interpret it. The only
thing that should be considered is whether the language of the statute specifically restricts the
agency’s power. The argument against the ruling is that some interpretations made have a part in
defining the agency’s jurisdiction, while others simply exercise the jurisdiction they already
have. The majority stated that, for an agency, these distinctions don’t truly exist the way they do
for courts. The only issue at hand is if the agency has gone beyond their power.
Concurring/Dissenting: Breyer concurred that the only issue at question when regarding the
agency’s interpretation of its jurisdiction is whether or not they’ve gone beyond their power.
However, he states that just because a statute is vague, one shouldn’t assume that Congress
intended to defer to the agency. Roberts, Kennedy and Alito dissented, with Roberts giving the
dissenting opinion. Roberts stated that a court needs to decide that the agency in question is
“entitled to deference” (27) before granting it. Only after that decision is made should Chevron
be applied.
Concise Rule of Law: When there is debate over the precise meaning of a statute, and the
language of the statute doesn’t limit the concerned agency’s power, the Chevron test should be
applied, and an agency should decide the extent of its power and jurisdiction over the issue.
Analysis/Meaning: This case is important to communication law because it could potentially
give the FCC a lot of extra power. It’s true that the FCC must stay within the regulations of the
different Communications Acts, but this ruling could set a precedent that could allow them a lot
of implied powers. If the courts defer to the FCC in regards to their jurisdiction every time an
ambiguous statute comes to debate, I think the FCC will have a lot more regulatory power than if
each debate was decided independently of each other. While I understand the concurring and
dissenting opinions, and see their side of the argument, I agree with the majority opinion. The
FCC’s purpose is to oversee these entities and carry out the regulations, and they need proper
authority to do so successfully. I don’t feel this ruling gives them too much power. This is
similar to a number of other cases, like Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, where the FCC made a
regulation and had their power questioned. In both of these cases, the FCC was within their
bounds. Though many communications companies don’t seem to enjoy being regulated, the FCC
needs proper authority to keep order.