LTD Broadband asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the FCC’s rejection of its long-form application for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund support, as expected (see 2311160039). LTD challenged the FCC’s Dec. 4 order denying LTD’s application for review of the Wireline Bureau’s decision to reject the company’s application. “LTD asks that the Court hold the Order unlawful and set it aside,” said the company’s petition, which was posted by the court Wednesday. The FCC didn't immediately comment.
The FCC filed notice with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Wednesday of 10 multicircuit petitions for review challenging the commission’s Nov. 20 digital divide order and the “digital discrimination of access” definition contained in that order (see 2401310003). The petitions were filed in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 11th and the D.C. Circuits and were received by the FCC from the petitioners within 10 days after the order’s Jan. 22 publication in the Federal Register, said the notice. All were filed between Jan. 30 and Feb. 1, said the notice. Under Panel Rule 25.3, the FCC is serving the notice on the clerks of all the circuit courts where petitions for review have been filed, plus on counsel for all parties, it said. Virtually all the petitioners are challenging the order on grounds that it gives the commission unprecedented authority to regulate the broadband internet economy.
The opening brief of the Insurance Marketing Coalition is due March 18 in its petition for review of the FCC’s Dec. 18 order implementing rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to target and eliminate illegal robotexts (see 2312220059), said a briefing notice Monday (docket 23-14125) at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The coalition contends the order exceeds the FCC’s statutory authority and was adopted “without observance of procedure required by law.” The coalition wants the 11th Circuit to vacate the order, which imposes several measures, including codifying that the national do not call registry’s protections apply to unlawful text messages.
The Texas Cable Association wants the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hold the FCC’s Nov. 20 digital discrimination order unlawful and to set it aside, said its petition for review (docket 24-60048), filed Tuesday and posted Thursday. It shares the docket number with the petition that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also filed Tuesday along with the Texas Association of Business and the Longview, Texas, Chamber of Commerce (see 2401300053).
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tentatively set oral argument for the week of May 13 in Gray Television’s petition for review against the FCC, said the court’s notice Monday (docket 22-14274). Gray’s petition argues that the FCC’s authority over broadcast license transfers doesn’t apply to Gray’s 2020 purchase of another broadcaster’s CBS network affiliation in Anchorage because no licenses were transferred (see 2309140058). The case will be argued in Birmingham, Alabama.
With the FCC’s Nov. 20 order adopting a definition of “digital discrimination of access” to broadband internet service published Jan. 22 in the Federal Register, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Texas Association of Business and the Longview, Texas, Chamber of Commerce filed a petition for review Tuesday at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to have the order vacated. Tuesday’s petition differs little from the "protective" petition the groups filed Jan. 19 “out of an abundance of caution” in case the 5th Circuit determined that the date of public notice was the date of public release rather than the date of FR publication (see 2401230004). The U.S. Chamber “supports expanded access of fast, affordable, and reliable internet,” that “private sector innovation” drives, Neil Bradley, executive vice president-chief policy officer and head-strategic advocacy, said in a statement Tuesday. The FCC's new rule “will hinder efforts to bridge the digital divide -- hurting the very people it aims to help,” Bradley argued. It empowers the FCC to “micromanage the internet” and “subverts” the badly needed broadband investments included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, he said.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court “may lack jurisdiction” over the Insurance Marketing Coalition’s petition for review to vacate the FCC’s Dec. 18 order imposing several measures under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to restrict unlawful text messaging, said the court’s notice Thursday (docket 23-14125). “If it is determined that this court is without jurisdiction, this appeal will be dismissed,” said the notice. IMC filed the appeal before the order at issue was published in the Federal Register, it said. It asked the parties “to simultaneously advise the court in writing” within 14 days of their position regarding the jurisdictional questions. The FCC has asked the 11th Circuit to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction (see 2401190057), and IMC said it takes no position on the FCC’s request (see 2401250033).
Ligado's takings complaint against the federal government (see 2310130003) mistakenly treats its L-band license as company property, contrary to legal precedent, DOJ said in a motion to dismiss last week (docket 23-1797). Moreover, DOJ said Ligado's complaint before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, asserting the government is unlawfully trying to preclude the company from using its FCC-granted L-band license, doesn't allege authorized government action that could give rise to takings liability. In addition, DOJ said the federal claims court lacks jurisdiction and Ligado hasn't identified authorized government action precluding the company from actually using its modified license. Ligado can't plead the license lost all value, as it still authorizes mobile satellite service use. Moreover, the company can't claim any economic loss is permanent, said the motion. Ligado emailed Friday that as it set out in its lawsuit, "government officials deliberately deprived [it] of its rightfully licensed property, and the government must be held accountable. This attack on an American business by the world’s most powerful institution is contrary to the rule of law and antithetical to the government’s years-long support for the deployment of 5G technology as a vital national priority. We worked diligently and in good faith with government agencies to find a fair resolution but were left with no choice but to pursue litigation to defend our interests."
The 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court granted the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition's unopposed motion for leave to intervene on the FCC’s behalf in opposing a petition seeking court review of the commission's Oct. 25 declaratory ruling authorizing E-rate funding for Wi-Fi service and equipment on school buses (see 2401200001). U.S. Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick signed the order Wednesday (docket 23-60641). Maurine and Matt Molak are challenging the FCC's ruling because they say it will increase E-rate program “outlays” and raise the federal universal service charge they pay as a line-item on their monthly phone bill. They also contend the ruling gives children and teenagers unsupervised social media access on school buses, and that this runs counter to the mission of David's Legacy Foundation, which advocates ending cyberbullying. The Molaks co-founded the foundation in memory of their son. The coalition argues that the Molaks’ petition, if successful, “would do great harm” to the interests of the coalition and its 300 members by “inhibiting online learning,” it said.
Connecticut low-power TV broadcaster Radio Communications Corp. (RCC) seeks “expedited consideration” of its Jan. 10 petition for review to overturn the FCC’s Dec. 12 order implementing the 2023 Low Power Protection Act (LPPA), said RCC's emergency motion Tuesday (docket 24-1004) at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The LPPA allows certain LPTV stations to upgrade to Class A status (see 2401180075), RCC also requests a stay of the FCC order and expedited case processing should a stay be entered, said the motion. The FCC opposes the motion, and DOJ takes no position, RCC said. The company argues that the FCC order unconstitutionally restricts program content for Class A eligibility purposes, and unlawfully precludes Class A licensees from asserting cable TV must-carry rights, said the motion. The order also fails to follow the LPPA’s “direction” to protect LPTV stations, it said. The stay, expedited review, and summary reversal are warranted, it said. Expeditious consideration is required because the FCC “announced the imminent commencement of the one-year LPTV license upgrade filing window under the LPPA to change station class from LPTV to Class A “with the same license terms as full power TV stations,” it said. But the FCC order “precludes RCC from filing an LPPA Class A upgrade application,” said the motion. Absent expedited consideration of its petition, “it appears unlikely that RCC would be able to fully litigate this case, come into compliance with full power TV rules, and then timely file a Class A license upgrade application within the LPPA’s one-year window,” it said. RCC’s loss of its Class A license upgrade “filing right” causes irreparable injury because “the only opportunity to file for the economic benefits afforded during the LPPA’s one-year Class A license upgrade period will be lost forever,” the motion said. “Loss of license by displacement” will also cause irreparable injury because RCC would lose revenue and viewers, “and viewer relationships would be damaged,” it said: “Lost viewers would necessarily move on to other program content providers and that lost good will could never be recaptured even if RCC were somehow able to locate new spectrum.”