Three infrastructure owner and contractor groups petitioned the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit Tuesday for review of the FCC’s digital discrimination order, released Nov. 20 and published Jan. 22 in the Federal Register, on grounds that it gives the commission unprecedented authority to regulate the broadband internet economy. The Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA), the Power & Communications Contractors Association (PCCA) and NATE filed the petition. It was immediately transferred to the 8th Circuit where it was consolidated with 13 previous petitions under a Feb. 9 order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (see 2402120077). It was docketed as case number 24-1411. The Nov. 20 order “demonstrates the FCC’s failure to retain sight of the scope of its mission assigned by Congress,” the petition said. Entities like infrastructure owners and contractors “play an important role in advancing the goal of facilitating equal access to broadband service by making high-quality modern infrastructure available as quickly as possible for the use by telecommunications and broadband providers,” it said. The infrastructure provided is generally “neutral host,” allowing “any number of providers to place equipment on the sites, increasing broadband access and improving service,” it said. But the infrastructure owners and contractors represented by WIA, PCCA and NATE don’t sell broadband services directly to end users and therefore don’t have the ability “to control the place and manner of broadband access,” it said. The order ultimately also fails to “meaningfully address” WIA’s argument that the order’s definition of “covered entities” exceeds the FCC’s “statutory language and mandate” that Congress intended, it said.
The FCC opposes Radio Communication Corp.'s Jan. 23 emergency motion for “expedited consideration” of its Jan. 10 petition for review to overturn the agency’s Dec. 12 order implementing the 2023 Low Power Protection Act (see 2401240049), said its opposition Monday (docket 24-1004) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Connecticut station contends that the order prevents it from upgrading its LPTV operation to Class A status, and it seeks an emergency stay, expedited review and summary reversal of the order. But RCC asks the court for “three kinds of extraordinary relief” where “none is warranted,” said the FCC’s opposition. The station isn’t entitled to a stay from the D.C. Circuit because it failed to seek one before the commission, it said. RCC likewise failed to establish “the substantial showings necessary” for summary reversal and expedited review, the FCC added. RCC has “no reasonable chance” to prevail on the merits, let alone “clear the high bar necessary for extraordinary relief at this stage,” said the opposition. That’s because the FCC “did nothing more than follow the clear commands of the statute,” it said. RCC’s motion should be denied, it said.
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Ligado is fighting efforts by Iridium and aviation associations to file an amicus brief supporting dismissal of Ligado litigation against the U.S. government regarding the company's planned L-band use (see 2402120009). In a U.S. Court of Federal Claims opposition Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01797), Ligado said it would be improper for Iridium to participate as an amicus for the defense since Iridium "is not a friend of this Court [but] is a friend (and business partner) of a party -- the United States Government." Ligado said Iridium "is merely another arm of the United States Government in this matter, parroting the Government’s arguments with interests that are perfectly aligned." Ligado said Iridium's disputing of FCC findings and facts alleged in the complaint is irrelevant for now, as at the current stage of the litigation the court must accept as true the allegations in Ligado's complaint. Ligado said Iridium's advancement of legal arguments infringes on DOJ's "statutorily mandated exclusive authority and responsibility to litigate on behalf of the United States."
Communications Litigation Today is tracking the below lawsuits involving appeals of FCC actions. Cases marked with an * were terminated since the last update. Cases in bold are new since the last update.
The FCC faces three petitions for review, all filed Friday, in separate circuits, challenging the lawfulness of the commission’s Dec. 26 quadrennial review order for allegedly violating Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act. Nexstar Media Group filed its petition (docket 24-60088) in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Beasley Media Group and Tri-State Communications filed their joint petition (docket 24-10535) in the 11th Circuit, and Zimmer Radio of Mid-Missouri filed its petition (docket 24-1380) in the 8th Circuit.
The Texas Association of Business (TAB) petitioned the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court for review of the FCC’s updated data breach notification rules. The rules were adopted Dec. 13, released Dec. 21 and published in the Federal Register Feb. 12, said TAB's Thursday filing (docket 24-60085). They are effective March 13 (see 2402090035).
The Ohio Telecom Association (OTA) petitioned the 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court for review of the FCC’s updated data breach notification rules, adopted Dec. 13, released Dec. 21 and published in the Federal Register Feb. 12, said its Tuesday filing (docket 24-3133). The rules are effective March 13.
The Media Alliance and Great Public Schools Now seek to intervene in support of the FCC in eight petitions for review of the commission’s Nov. 20 digital discrimination order, now consolidated in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the nonprofits’ unopposed motion Tuesday.
Essential Network Technologies and MetComm.net filed a petition to review last week at the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit challenging the authority of the FCC and the Universal Service Administrative Co. to stop processing the reimbursement of discounts for IT and broadband services that MetComm and Essential provided to schools under Section 254 of the Communications Act. Also at issue is whether the FCC’s failure to conclude numerous extended USAC investigations within a reasonable time violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution's due process clause by seriously impairing the ability of MetComm and Essential to adequately defend themselves against USAC’s “unspecified allegations,” said the petition (docket 24-1027). This isn’t “an ordinary agency delay case” but instead is a case in which the FCC “has a duty to act,” it said. The commission is failing its “statutory reimbursement duty while embroiling the schools and their service providers in endless proceedings before a private company, USAC, that lacks any authority to decide the legal issues involved,” it said. If the petition to review is denied, the petition seeks, in the alternative, mandamus relief compelling the FCC to comply with the duties Congress included in the Communications Act and the APA, it said.