Supreme Court of the United States
City of Arlington, Texas, Petitioners v. Federal Communications Commission Cable, Telecommunications…
May 20, 2013569 U.S. 290
Summary
The Supreme Court held that Chevron deference applies to an agency's interpretation of a statutory ambiguity concerning the scope of its own regulatory authority, rejecting any categorical 'jurisdictional' exception because the line between 'jurisdictional' and 'nonjurisdictional' interpretations is a mirage. Because Congress unambiguously vested the FCC with general authority to administer the Communications Act through rulemaking, the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's judgment upholding the FCC's declaratory ruling setting presumptively reasonable 90-day (collocation) and 150-day (all other) deadlines for state and local action on wireless siting applications under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). Justice Breyer concurred in part and in the judgment, emphasizing Mead's force-of-law framework; Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito, dissented, insisting that courts must decide de novo, before deferring, whether Congress delegated interpretive authority over the specific ambiguity at issue.
Holding
- Whether Chevron deference applies to an agency's interpretation of a statutory ambiguity concerning the scope of its own regulatory authority (jurisdiction).. Yes. There is no 'jurisdictional' exception to Chevron; the distinction between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional agency interpretations is a mirage, and the question in every case is simply whether the statutory text forecloses the agency's assertion of authority.
- Whether the FCC had authority to interpret § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) and adopt the 90- and 150-day presumptive timeframes.. Yes. The preconditions to Chevron deference were satisfied because Congress unambiguously vested the FCC with general authority to administer the Communications Act through rulemaking and adjudication, and the Declaratory Ruling was promulgated in the exercise of that authority; the judgment upholding the deadlines is affirmed.
Docket 11-1545
Cited authorities
- 110 Stat. 56
- 52 Stat. 588
- 47 U.S.C. § 201
- 47 U.S.C. § 332
- 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1
- 7 U.S.C. § 18
- 20 Cardozo L. Rev. 989
- 47 U.S.C. § 332
Cited by
- The State ex rel. McCann v. Delaware County Board of Elections.
- City of Los Angeles v. Jefferson B. Sessions Iii
- Boston Taxi Owners Association, Inc., Raphael Ophir and Joseph Pierre v. City of Boston, Boston Police Commissioner…
- Jo Anne Gourdeau v. City of Newton, Newton Police Department
- Jalbert v. Securities and Exchange Commission
- ExteNet Systems, Inc. v. the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts
- Donahue Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., Corrine Downing, Raymond Endres
- Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Sylvia Burwell