Supreme Court Withholds Clarity for TCPA Litigants
Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2024 5:46 am
On June 20, the Supreme Court issued an uneventful opinion in the highly anticipated case PDR Network LLC, et al. v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, No. 17-1705. The case, which we discussed in depth here, was primed to give TCPA litigants much-needed guidance regarding the impact of Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations on courts. However, rather than issue a decisive opinion as to whether the FCC or the courts will dominate the interpretation of the TCPA, the Supreme bank data Court vacated and remanded the Fourth Circuit’s ruling that a West Virginia court had to follow the FCC’s view regarding “unsolicited advertisements” prohibited by the TCPA. This result leaves open the question of whether federal courts are required under the Hobbs Act to defer to agency decisions under the Chevron doctrine.
Background
Justice Breyer (with Justices Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joining) issued a short, six-page opinion punting the question of whether defendants in a civil case under the TCPA can contest the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA because the Fourth Circuit failed to address two questions:
Is the FCC 2006 Order the equivalent of a “legislative rule”, which is issued “by an agency pursuant to statutory authority” and has the “force and effect of law”, or is the FCC 2006 Order the equivalent of an “interpretative rule”, which simply “advises the public of the agency’s construction of the statutes and rules which it administers?”; and
Did PDR have a “prior” and “adequate” opportunity to seek judicial review of the Order?
The answers to these questions, according to Justice Breyer, were necessary to the final decision and outcome. The Court did state that if the Order was akin to an interpretative rule, the lower courts may not have to follow it (although the Court was very clear that this was a “may” and not a “shall”). Further, if PDR did not have a prior and adequate opportunity to seek review (because the Hobbs Act requires challenges to an Order be brought in a court of appeals within 60 days after the entry of the order), “it may be that the Administrative Procedure Act permits PDR to challenge the Order’s validity in this enforcement proceeding.”
Background
Justice Breyer (with Justices Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joining) issued a short, six-page opinion punting the question of whether defendants in a civil case under the TCPA can contest the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA because the Fourth Circuit failed to address two questions:
Is the FCC 2006 Order the equivalent of a “legislative rule”, which is issued “by an agency pursuant to statutory authority” and has the “force and effect of law”, or is the FCC 2006 Order the equivalent of an “interpretative rule”, which simply “advises the public of the agency’s construction of the statutes and rules which it administers?”; and
Did PDR have a “prior” and “adequate” opportunity to seek judicial review of the Order?
The answers to these questions, according to Justice Breyer, were necessary to the final decision and outcome. The Court did state that if the Order was akin to an interpretative rule, the lower courts may not have to follow it (although the Court was very clear that this was a “may” and not a “shall”). Further, if PDR did not have a prior and adequate opportunity to seek review (because the Hobbs Act requires challenges to an Order be brought in a court of appeals within 60 days after the entry of the order), “it may be that the Administrative Procedure Act permits PDR to challenge the Order’s validity in this enforcement proceeding.”