Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission

United States Supreme Court
133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013)


Facts

Congress delegated rulemaking authority to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (defendant) to implement the Communications Act of 1934. This authority subsequently applied to the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1966 (Act), which limited the ability of local governments to regulate the placement of wireless communication towers. The Act identified five specific limitations, one of which required local governments to act on tower-location applications within a reasonable period of time (reasonableness provision). The Act also included a savings clause, which stated that the five enumerated limitations were the only limitations on local decision-making authority. In response to an inquiry from an industry group representing the wireless-communications industry, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling that interpreted the reasonableness provision as imposing a rebuttable presumption of timeliness for certain application decisions. The City of Arlington, Texas and other state and local governments (plaintiffs) petitioned the court of appeals for review of the FCC’s ruling, arguing that the FCC lacked the authority to interpret the reasonableness provision. The court of appeals upheld the FCC’s ruling, finding that the savings clause was ambiguous regarding its effect on the FCC’s authority to interpret the reasonableness provision. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Breyer, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Roberts, C.J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.