1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 969 F.3d
  5. 969 F.3d 1020 (2020)
 

CITY OF PORTLAND v. U.S.

Nos. 18-72689, 19-70490, 19-70123, 19-70124, 19-70125, 19-70136, 19-70144, 19-70145, 19-70146, 19-70147, 19-70326, 19-70339, 19-70341, 19-70344.

969 F.3d 1020 (2020)

CITY OF PORTLAND, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America; Federal Communications Commission, Respondents, City and County of San Francisco; City of Arcadia; City of Bellevue; City of Brookhaven; City of Burien; City of Burlingame; City of Chicago; City of Culver City; City of Dubuque; City of Gig Harbor; City of Kirkland; City of Las Vegas; City of Lincoln; City of Monterey; City of Philadelphia; City of Piedmont; City of Plano; City of San Bruno; City of San Jacinto; City of San Jose; City of Santa Monica; City of Shafter; County of Los Angeles; Howard County; Michigan Municipal League; CTIA — The Wireless Association; Town of Fairfax; Town of Hillsborough, Intervenors. American Electric Power Service Corporation; CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC; Duke Energy Corporation; Entergy Corporation; Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC; Southern Company; Tampa Electric Company; Virginia Electric and Power Company; Xcel Energy Services Inc., Petitioners, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents, Verizon; US Telecom—The Broadband Association, Respondents-Intervenors. Sprint Corporation, Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents, City of Bowie, Maryland; City of Eugene, Oregon; City of Huntsville, Alabama; City of Westminster, Maryland; County of Marin, California; City of Arcadia, California; Culver City, California; City of Bellevue, California; City of Burien, Washington; City of Burlingame, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington; City of Issaquah, Washington; City of Kirkland, Washington; City of Las Vegas, Nevada; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California; City of Piedmont, California; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California; City of Yuma, Arizona; County of Los Angeles, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of New York, New York, Intervenors. Verizon Communications, Inc., Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents, City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, California; City of Burien, Washington; City of Burlingame, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington; City of Issaquah, Washington; City of Kirkland, Washington; City of Las Vegas, Nevada; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California; City of Piedmont, California; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California; City of Yuma, Arizona; County of Los Angeles, California; Culver City, California; City of New York, New York; Town of Fairfax, California, Intervenors. Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc., Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents, City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, California; City of Burien, Washington; City of Burlingame, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington; City of Issaquah, Washington; City of Kirkland, Washington; City of Las Vegas, Nevada; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California; City of Piedmont, California; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California; City of Yuma, Arizona; County of Los Angeles, California; Culver City, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of New York, New York, Intervenors. City of Seattle, Washington; City of Tacoma, Washington; King County, Washington; League of Oregon Cities; League of California Cities; League of Arizona Cities and Towns, Petitioners, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents, City of Bakersfield, California; City of Coconut Creek, Florida; City of Lacey, Washington; City of Olympia, Washington; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California; City of Tumwater, Washington; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance; Rainier Communications Commission; County of Thurston, Washington; City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, Washington; City of Burien, Washington; City of Burlingame, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington; City of Issaquah, Washington; City of Kirkland, Washington; City of Las Vegas, Nevada; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California; City of Piedmont, California; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California; City of Yuma, Arizona; County of Los Angeles, California; Culver City, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of New York, New York, Intervenors. City of San Jose, California; City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, Washington; City of Burien, Washington; City of Burlingame, California; Culver City, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington; City of Issaquah, Washington; City of Kirkland, Washington; City of Las Vegas, Nevada; City of Los Angeles, California; County of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California; City of Piedmont, California; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of Shafter, California; City of Yuma, Arizona, Petitioners, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents, CTIA — The Wireless Association; Competitive Carriers Association; Sprint Corporation; Verizon Communications, Inc.; City of New York, New York; Wireless Infrastructure Association, Intervenors. City and County of San Francisco, Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents. City of Huntington Beach, Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents, City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, Washington; City of Burien, Washington; City of Burlingame, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington; City of Issaquah, Washington; City of Kirkland, Washington; City of Las Vegas, Nevada; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California; City of Piedmont, California; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California; City of Yuma, Arizona; County of Los Angeles, California; Culver City, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of New York, New York, Intervenors. Montgomery County, Maryland, Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents. AT&T Services, Inc., Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents, City of Baltimore, Maryland; City and County of San Francisco, California; Michigan Municipal League; City of Albuquerque, New Mexico; National League of Cities; City of Bakersfield, California; Town of Ocean City, Maryland; City of Brookhaven, Georgia; City of Coconut Creek, Florida; City of Dubuque, Iowa; City of Emeryville, California; City of Fresno, California; City of La Vista, Nebraska; City of Lacey, Washington; City of Medina, Washington; City of Olympia, Washington; City of Papillion, Nebraska; City of Plano, Texas; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California; City of Rockville, Maryland; City of San Bruno, California; City of Santa Monica, California; City of Sugarland, Texas; City of Tumwater, Washington; City of Westminster, Maryland; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance; Contra Costa County, California; County of Marin, California; International City/County Management Association; International Municipal Lawyers Association; League of Nebraska Municipalities; National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors; Rainier Communications Commission; Thurston County, Washington; Town of Corte Madera, California; Town of Hillsborough, California; Town of Yarrow Point, Washington; City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, Washington; City of Burien, Washington; City of Burlingame, California; City of Culver City, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington; City of Issaquah, Washington; City of Kirkland, Washington; City of Las Vegas, Nevada; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California; City of Piedmont, California; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California; City of Yuma, Arizona; County of Los Angeles, California; Town of Fairfax, California, Intervenors. American Public Power Association, Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents, City of Albuquerque, New Mexico; National League of Cities; City of Brookhaven, Georgia; City of Baltimore, Maryland; City of Dubuque, Iowa; Town of Ocean City, Maryland; City of Emeryville, California; Michigan Municipal League; Town of Hillsborough, California; City of La Vista, Nebraska; City of Medina, Washington; City of Papillion, Nebraska; City of Plano, Texas; City of Rockville, Maryland; City of San Bruno, California; City of Santa Monica, California; City of Sugarland, Texas; League of Nebraska Municipalities; National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors; City of Bakersfield, California; City of Fresno, California; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California; City of Coconut Creek, Florida; City of Lacey, Washington; City of Olympia, Washington; City of Tumwater, Washington; Town of Yarrow Point, Washington; Thurston County, Washington; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance; Rainier Communications Commission; City and County of San Francisco, California; County of Marin, California; Contra Costa County, California; Town of Corte Madera, California; City of Westminster, Maryland, Intervenors. City of Austin, Texas; City of Ann Arbor, Michigan; County of Anne Arundel, Maryland; City of Atlanta, Georgia; City of Boston, Massachusetts; City of Chicago, Illinois; Clark County, Nevada; City of College Park, Maryland; City of Dallas, Texas; District of Columbia; City of Gaithersburg, Maryland; Howard County, Maryland; City of Lincoln, Nebraska; Montgomery County, Maryland; City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; City of Omaha, Nebraska; City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; City of Rye, New York; City of Scarsdale, New York; City of Seat Pleasant, Maryland; City of Takoma Park, Maryland; Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues; Meridian Township, Michigan; Bloomfield Township, Michigan; Michigan Townships Association; Michigan Coalition To Protect Public Rights-of-way, Petitioners, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents, City of Albuquerque, New Mexico; National League of Cities; City of Brookhaven, Georgia; City of Baltimore, Maryland; City of Dubuque, Iowa; Town of Ocean City, Maryland; City of Emeryville, California; Michigan Municipal League; Town of Hillsborough, California; City of La Vista, Nebraska; City of Medina, Washington; City of Papillion, Nebraska; City of Plano, Texas; City of Rockville, Maryland; City of San Bruno, California; City of Santa Monica, California; City of Sugarland, Texas; League of Nebraska Municipalities; National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors; City of Bakersfield, California; City of Fresno, California; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California; City of Coconut Creek, Florida; City of Lacey, Washington; City of Olympia, Washington; City of Tumwater, Washington; Town of Yarrow Point, Washington; Thurston County, Washington; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance; Rainier Communications Commission; City and County of San Francisco, California; County of Marin, California; Contra Costa County, California; Town of Corte Madera, California; City of Westminster, Maryland, Intervenors. City of Eugene, Oregon; City of Huntsville, Alabama; City of Bowie, Maryland, Petitioners, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents, City of Albuquerque, New Mexico; National League of Cities; City of Brookhaven, Georgia; City of Baltimore, Maryland; City of Dubuque, Iowa; Town of Ocean City, Maryland; City of Emeryville, California; Michigan Municipal League; Town of Hillsborough, California; City of La Vista, Nebraska; City of Medina, Washington; City of Papillion, Nebraska; City of Plano, Texas; City of Rockville, Maryland; City of San Bruno, California; City of Santa Monica, California; City of Sugarland, Texas; League of Nebraska Municipalities; National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors; City of Bakersfield, California; City of Fresno, California; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California; City of Coconut Creek, Florida; City of Lacey, Washington; City of Olympia, Washington; City of Tumwater, Washington; Town of Yarrow Point, Washington; Thurston County, Washington; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance; Rainier Communications Commission; City and County of San Francisco, California; County of Marin, California; Contra Costa County, California; Town of Corte Madera, California; City of Westminster, Maryland, Intervenors.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed August 12, 2020.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Petitioners/Intervenors Joseph Van Eaton (argued) and John Gasparini , Best Best & Krieger LLP, Washington, D.C.; Gail A. Karish , Best Best & Krieger LLP, Los Angeles, California; Michael J. Watza , Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook, Detroit, Michigan; for Petitioners/Intervenors Cities of San Jose, Arcadia, Bellevue, Burien, Burlingame, Culver City, Gig Harbor, Issaquah, Kirkland, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Monterey, Ontario, Piedmont, Portland, San Jacinto, Shafter, Yuma, Albuquerque, Brookhaven, Baltimore, Dubuque, Emeryville, La Vista, Medina, Papillion, Plano, Rockville, San Bruno, Santa Monica, Sugarland, Austin, Ann Arbor, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, College Park, Dallas, Gaithersburg, Lincoln, Myrtle Beach, Omaha, Philadelphia, Rye, Scarsdale, Seat Pleasant, and Takoma Park; Los Angeles, Anne Arundel, Clark, Howard, and Montgomery Counties; Towns of Fairfax, Ocean City, and Hillsborough; Townships of Meridian and Bloomfield, Michigan Townships Association; District of Columbia; Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-of-Way, National League of Cities, Michigan Municipal League, League of Nebraska Municipalities, and Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues.

Sean A. Stokes (argued) and James Baller , Baller Stokes & Lide PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner American Public Power Association.

Eric P. Gotting (argued), Keller and Heckman LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners/Intervenors Montgomery County, Maryland; and International Municipal Lawyers Association; International City/County Management Association.

Eric B. Langley (argued) and Robin F. Bromberg, Langley & Bromberg LLC, Birmingham, Alabama, for Petitioners American Electric Power Service Corporation, Duke Energy Corporation, Entergy Corporation, Oncor Electric Delivery Company, Southern Company, and Tampa Electric Company.

Joshua S. Turner (argued), Sara M. Baxenberg , and Boyd Garriott , Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, D.C.; Thomas Power , Senior Vice President and General Counsel, CTIA — The Wireless Association, Washington, D.C.; for Intervenor CTIA — The Wireless Association.

Claire J. Evans (argued) and Christopher S. Huther , Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor US Telecom—The Broadband Association.

Kenneth S. Fellman and Gabrielle A. Daley , Kissinger & Fellman PC, Denver, Colorado; Robert C. May III and Michael D. Johnston , Telecom Law Firm PC, San Diego, California; for Petitioners/Intervenors Cities of Bakersfield, Coconut Creek, Fresno, Lacey, Olympia, Rancho Palos Verdes, Seattle, Tacoma, Tumwater; Town of Yarrow Point; King and Thurston Counties; League of Oregon Cities, League of California Cities, League of Arizona Cities and Towns, Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance, and Rainier Communications Commission.

Brett H. Freedson , Charles A. Zdebski , and Robert J. Gastner , Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric and Virginia Electric and Power Company.

David D. Rines and Kevin M. Cookler , Lerman Senter PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner Xcel Energy Services.

Christopher J. Wright and E. Austin Bonner , Harris Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner/Intervenor Sprint Corporation.

Sean A. Lev and Frederick Gaston Hall , Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner AT&T Services.

Henry Weissmann , Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, California; Jonathan Meltzer , Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Petitioner/Intervenor Verizon Communications.

Megan L. Brown and Jeremy J. Broggi , Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner Puerto Rico Telephone Company.

Tillman L. Lay and Jeffrey M. Bayne , Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP, Washington, D.C., Dennis J. Herrera , City Attorney; Theresa L. Mueller , Chief Energy and Telecommunications Deputy; William K. Sanders , Deputy City Attorney; Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco, California; for Petitioners/Intervenors Cities of Eugene, Huntsville, Bowie, Westminster; Town of Corte Madera; and Counties of San Francisco, Marin, and Contra Costa.

Michael E. Gates , City Attorney; Michael J. Vigliotta , Chief Assistant City Attorney; Office of the City Attorney, Huntington Beach, California; for Petitioner City of Huntington Beach.

Nancy L. Werner , General Counsel, Alexandria, Virginia, as and for Intervenor National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors.

Zachary W. Carter , Corporation Counsel; Richard Dearing , Claude S. Platton , and Elina Druker , Attorneys; Office of Corporation Counsel, New York, New York; for Intervenor City of New York.

Amanda Kellar and Charles W. Thompson Jr. , Rockville, Maryland; for Intervenors International Municipal Lawyers Association and International City/County Management Association.

Jennifer P. Bagg , Harris Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor Competitive Carriers Association.

Thomas Scott Thompson and Patrick Curran , Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Intervenor Wireless Infrastructure Association. Respondents.

Sarah E. Citrin (argued), Scott M. Noveck (argued), and James M. Carr (argued), Counsel; Richard K. Welch , Deputy Associate General Counsel; Jacob M. Lewis , Associate General Counsel; Thomas M. Johnson Jr. , General Counsel; Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C.; Robert B. Nicholson , Adam D. Chandler and Patrick M. Kuhlmann , Attorneys; Michael F. Murray , Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Andrew C. Finch , Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Makan Delrahim , Assistant Attorney General; United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondents United States of America and Federal Communications Commission. Amici Curiae.

James E. Moore and Tim R. Shattuck , Woods Fuller Shultz & Smith P.C., Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for Amicus Curiae Missouri Basin Municipal Power Agency.

Ellen F. Rosenblum , Attorney General; Benjamin Gutman , Solicitor General; Rolf C. Moan , Senior Assistant Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Salem, Oregon; for Amicus Curiae State of Oregon.

Thomas E. Montgomery , County Counsel; Jeffrey P. Michalowski , Senior Deputy; Office of County Counsel, San Diego, California; for Amicus Curiae County of San Diego.

Spencer Q. Parsons , Beery Elsner & Hammond LLP, Portland, Oregon, for Amici Curiae Nebraska Municipal Power Pool and Lincoln Electric System.

Gerit F. Hull , Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC, Washington, D.C.; Lisa G. McAlister , SVP & General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs; American Municipal Power Inc., Columbus, Ohio; for Amicus Curiae American Municipal Power Inc.

Emily Fisher , Aryeh Fishman , and Amanda Aspatore , Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C.; Brett Kilbourne , Vice President Policy and General Counsel, Utilities Technology Council, Arlington, Virginia; Jeffrey L. Sheldon and Stephen J. Rosen , Levine Blaszak Block & Boothby LLP, Washington, D.C.; Brian O'Hara , Senior Director Regulatory.

Issues, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Arlington, Virginia; for Amici Curiae Edison Electric Institute, Utilities Technology Council, and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

Matthew A. Love , Van Ness Feldman LLP, Seattle, Washington, for Amicus Curiae Northwest Public Power Association.

Sblend A. Sblendorio , Mallory L. Homewood , and Cara Mae Acibo , Hoge Fenton Jones & Appel Inc., Pleasanton, California, for Amicus Curiae Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council.

Terry M. Jarrett , Healy Law Offices LLC, Jefferson City, Missouri, for Amici Curiae Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities Association, Missouri Association of Municipal Utilities, and Arkansas Municipal Power Association.

W. Scott Snyder , Ogden Murphy Wallace, Seattle, Washington, for Amicus Curiae Association of Washington Cities.

David A. Rosenfeld , Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, Alameda, California, for Amici Curiae Communications Workers of America, National Digital Inclusion Alliance, and Public Knowledge.

Jane Luckhardt , General Counsel, Northern California Power Agency, Roseville, California; Jody Lamar Finklea , General Counsel & Chief Legal Officer; Dan O'Hagan , Assistant General Counsel & Regulatory Compliance Counsel; Florida Municipal Power Agency, Tallahassee, Florida; James N. Horwood and Latif M. Nurani , Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Amici Curiae Northern California Power Agency; Municipal Electric Power Association of Virginia; Florida Municipal Electric Association, Inc.; City of Fort Meade; Fort Pierce Utilities Authority; City of Jacksonville Beach (Beaches Energy Services); Utility Board of the City of Key West, Florida (Keys Energy Services); Kissimmee Utility Authority; City of Lakeland (Lakeland Electric); City of Mount Dora; Utilities Commission, City of New Smyrna Beach; Orlando Utilities Commission; and City of Wauchula.

Partial Dissent by Judge Bress

OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

These matters arise out of the wireless revolution that has taken place since 1996 when Congress passed amendments to the Telecommunications Act to support the then nascent technology. The revolution now represents the triumph of cellular technology over just about everything...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases