Stepping In: The FCC’'s Authority to Preempt
September 20, 2021
State Laws Under the Communications Act
Chris D. Linebaugh
State Laws Under the Communications Act
Updated May 12, 2025
(R46736)
Jump to Main Text of Report
Summary
The line between federal and state authority plays a central role in modern communications law. The line between federal and state authority plays a central role in modern communications law.
Legislative Attorney
Rather than fully displacing state law, the Communications Act of 1934 (Communications ActRather than fully displacing state law, the Communications Act of 1934 (Communications Act
or
Act) sets up a dual system of federal and state regulation. At the federal level, the ) sets up a dual system of federal and state regulation. At the federal level, the
Eric N. Holmes
Communications Act gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) Communications Act gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission)
Legislative Attorney
broad authority to regulate wired and wireless telephony, radio transmissions, cable services, and broad authority to regulate wired and wireless telephony, radio transmissions, cable services, and
matters that are ancillary to these areas. At the same time, matters that are ancillary to these areas. At the same time,
however, thethe Communications Act expressly preserves Act expressly preserves
some state regulatory authority over these technologies. Consequently, the boundary between the some state regulatory authority over these technologies. Consequently, the boundary between the
FCC’FCC's authority and s authority and
that of the statesthe states
’ has been a source of dispute. has been a source of dispute.
The FCC has the upper hand in such conflicts. The Communications Act gives the FCC broad regulatory authority and, along The FCC has the upper hand in such conflicts. The Communications Act gives the FCC broad regulatory authority and, along
with it, the ability to preempt state laws that conflict with or frustrate its regulatory actions. When the FCC is acting within its with it, the ability to preempt state laws that conflict with or frustrate its regulatory actions. When the FCC is acting within its
proper statutory authority, the U.S. Constitutionproper statutory authority, the U.S. Constitution
’'s Supremacy Clause ensures that its actions prevail. Nevertheless, the FCCs Supremacy Clause ensures that its actions prevail. Nevertheless, the FCC
’s 's statutory preemption authority is not boundless. The extent to which the FCC may displace state and local laws is limited by statutory preemption authority is not boundless. The extent to which the FCC may displace state and local laws is limited by
the scope of its regulatory jurisdiction, express statutory provisions preserving or defining the scope of state laws, and the scope of its regulatory jurisdiction, express statutory provisions preserving or defining the scope of state laws, and
interpretive presumptions that courts have applied to preserve the usual constitutional balance between the federal and state interpretive presumptions that courts have applied to preserve the usual constitutional balance between the federal and state
governments.governments.
Far from being an abstract debate, the FCCFar from being an abstract debate, the FCC
’'s ability to preempt state laws lies at the heart of many of its regulatory initiatives s ability to preempt state laws lies at the heart of many of its regulatory initiatives
in recent years. In particular, preemption is at the forefront of the Commissionin recent years. In particular, preemption is at the forefront of the Commission
’'s efforts to (1) s efforts to (1)
remove net neutrality requirements, (2) maintain a lightly-establish a deregulatory environment for broadband internet; (2) promote the provision of cable television services; (3) facilitate municipal (or "community") broadband; (4) maintain a lightly regulated approach to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)regulated approach to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
, (3; and (5) accelerate deployment of ) accelerate deployment of
fifth-generation wireless (5G) infrastructurefifth-generation wireless (5G) infrastructure
, (4) facilitate municipal (or “community”) broadband, and (5) promote the provision of cable television and internet services. State and local governments have challenged these initiatives in court. In . State and local governments have challenged these initiatives in court. In
some cases, courts have held that the FCC overstepped its statutory bounds. In other cases, some cases, courts have held that the FCC overstepped its statutory bounds. In other cases,
the legal challenges remain ongoing, leaving a cloud of uncertainty over the FCC’s actions.
courts have upheld, or largely upheld, the FCC's actions.
This Report discusses these issues in more detail. It begins with an overview of the legal framework governing the FCCThis Report discusses these issues in more detail. It begins with an overview of the legal framework governing the FCC
’s 's preemption actions, first discussing general federal preemption principles and then explaining the FCCpreemption actions, first discussing general federal preemption principles and then explaining the FCC
’'s preemption s preemption
authority under the Communications Act. The Report then reviews recent FCC initiatives in which FCC preemption plays a authority under the Communications Act. The Report then reviews recent FCC initiatives in which FCC preemption plays a
key role. Specifically, it explains how the FCC has exercised its preemption authority—and the extent to which such key role. Specifically, it explains how the FCC has exercised its preemption authority—and the extent to which such
authority has been challenged or is uncertain—in the areas of authority has been challenged or is uncertain—in the areas of
net neutrality, VoIP, 5G infrastructure deployment, community broadband, and broadband, state and local regulation of cable operators, community broadband, VoIP, and 5G infrastructure deployment.
Tstate and local regulation of cable operators.
Congressional Research Service
link to page 7 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 16 link to page 20 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 23 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 27 link to page 31 link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 34 link to page 36 link to page 37 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 41 link to page 37 link to page 42 Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
Contents
General Federal Preemption Principles ........................................................................................... 4
Overview of the FCC’s Preemption Authority Under the Communications Act ............................ 6
The FCC’s Jurisdictional Authority .......................................................................................... 6
Specific Statutory Provisions Addressing Preemption .............................................................. 8
Clear Statement Rule ............................................................................................................... 10
Current Issues ................................................................................................................................ 10
Net Neutrality .......................................................................................................................... 10
FCC’s Actions .................................................................................................................... 11
Mozilla Corp. v. FCC ........................................................................................................ 13
Next Steps ......................................................................................................................... 17
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) ........................................................................................ 19
Background ....................................................................................................................... 20
State Action and Legal Challenges ................................................................................... 20
Wireless Facility Siting for Fifth Generation (5G) Networks ................................................. 22
Technical Background ...................................................................................................... 22
State and Local Authority ................................................................................................. 23
FCC Statutory Authority and Procedure ........................................................................... 23
The FCC’s Orders ............................................................................................................. 24
Legal Challenges ............................................................................................................... 28
Legislative Activity ........................................................................................................... 30
Community Broadband ........................................................................................................... 30
Background ....................................................................................................................... 30
FCC Action and Statutory Authority ................................................................................. 31
Constitutional Issues ......................................................................................................... 33
Legislative Activity ........................................................................................................... 34
Cable Operators ....................................................................................................................... 35
Title VI .............................................................................................................................. 35
FCC Actions ...................................................................................................................... 35
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 38
Tables
Table 1. Introduced Community Broadband Legislation .............................................................. 34
Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 39
Congressional Research Service
link to page 9 Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
he line between federal and state authority plays a central role in modern communications he line between federal and state authority plays a central role in modern communications
law. Rather than fully displacing state law, the Communications Act of 1934law. Rather than fully displacing state law, the Communications Act of 1934
(Communications Act), as amended, , as amended,
T sets up a “set forth a dual systemdual system
” of federal and state regulation. of federal and state regulation.
11 At the federal level, the At the federal level, the
Communications Act gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) Communications Act gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission)
broad authority to regulate the development and operation of the nationbroad authority to regulate the development and operation of the nation
’'s wireless and wired s wireless and wired
communications services. This authority specifically includes regulating landline and mobile telephony (under Title II of the Act),2 radio transmissions (under Title III),3 and cable services (under Title VI).4 The communications services. Different titles of the Communications Act give the FCC "express and expansive"2 authority to regulate (1) "telecommunications services," such as landline telephone services (Title II);3 (2) radio transmissions, such as broadcast television, radio, and cellular telephony (Title III);4 and (3) cable services, including cable television (under Title VI).5 The Communications Act, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, also gives the FCC Act, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, also gives the FCC
“"ancillary jurisdictionancillary jurisdiction
”" to regulate communications services closely related to the areas under its to regulate communications services closely related to the areas under its
primary jurisdiction.primary jurisdiction.
56 At the same time, the At the same time, the
Communications Act expressly preserves some state authority to act in Act expressly preserves some state authority to act in
these areas.these areas.
67 Consequently, the boundary between the FCC Consequently, the boundary between the FCC
’'s authority and that of the states s authority and that of the states
becomes critical when the two regulatory regimes clash. The FCCbecomes critical when the two regulatory regimes clash. The FCC
’'s preemption authority gives it s preemption authority gives it
the upper hand in such conflicts. Under the U.S. Constitutionthe upper hand in such conflicts. Under the U.S. Constitution
’'s Supremacy Clause and the s Supremacy Clause and the
Communications Act, the FCC has broad authority to preempt state laws that conflict with or Communications Act, the FCC has broad authority to preempt state laws that conflict with or
frustrate its actions.frustrate its actions.
7
8
Nevertheless, the FCCNevertheless, the FCC
’'s preemption authority is not boundless. Courts have said that, as a general s preemption authority is not boundless. Courts have said that, as a general
matter, the FCC may only preempt state laws governing a communications service if the FCC has matter, the FCC may only preempt state laws governing a communications service if the FCC has
regulatory jurisdiction over that service.regulatory jurisdiction over that service.
89 For instance, For instance,
Sectionsection 2(b) of the 2(b) of the
Act,9Communications Act,10 as interpreted by as interpreted by
the Supreme Court, prohibits the FCC from regulating purely intrastate services under its the Supreme Court, prohibits the FCC from regulating purely intrastate services under its
ancillary jurisdiction.ancillary jurisdiction.
1011 Even if the Commission has regulatory authority, it must comply with Even if the Commission has regulatory authority, it must comply with
specific provisions that either expressly preempt or expressly preserve state laws in a given area.
1 47 U.S.C. §§ 151–624. 2 Id. §§ 201–276. 3 Id. §§ 301–399b. 4 Id. §§ 521–573. 5 United States v. Sw. Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 178 (1968) ([T]he authority which we recognize today under § 152(a) is restricted to that reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission’s various responsibilities for the regulation of television broadcasting.”); United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 662 (1972) (“We therefore concluded . . . that the Commission does have jurisdiction over CATV ‘reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of (its) various responsibilities for the regulation of television broadcasting . . . (and) may, for these purposes, issue ‘such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with law,’ as ‘public convenience, interest, or necessity requires.’”) (quoting Sw. Cable Co., 392 U.S. at 178). 6 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. §152(b) (“ . . . nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to (1) charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication service by wire or radio of any carrier . . .”).
7 See the section “Overview of the FCC’s Preemption Authority Under the Communications Act” for an overview of the FCC’s preemption authority. 8 See, e.g., La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986) (“[A] federal agency may preempt state law only when and if it is acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority.”); Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1, 75 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“[I]n any area where the Commission lacks the authority to regulate, it equally lacks the power to preempt state law.”); Public Service Com’n of Maryland v. FCC, 909 F.2d 1510, (D.C. Cir. 1990) (“The FCC cannot regulate (let alone preempt state regulation of) any service that does not fall within its Title II jurisdiction over common carrier services or its Title I jurisdiction over matters ‘incidental’ to communication by wire.”). 9 47 U.S.C. § 152(b). 10 AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 379–82 n.8 (1999) (rejecting the argument that 47 U.S.C. § 152(b) prevents the FCC from issuing rules implementing Title II’s local competition provisions on the ground that Section 201(b) gives the FCC authority to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of the Act,” but noting that, “[i]nsofar as Congress has remained silent . . . , § 152(b) continues to function” and the FCC could not “regulate any aspect of intrastate communication . . . on the theory that it had an ancillary effect on matters within the Commission's primary jurisdiction.”).
Congressional Research Service
1
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
For example, Section 332(c)(7) of the specific provisions that either expressly preempt or expressly preserve state laws in a given area. For example, section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act provides that state laws governing the placement, Act provides that state laws governing the placement,
construction, and modification of construction, and modification of
“"personal wireless service facilitiespersonal wireless service facilities
”" are only preempted to the are only preempted to the
extent the laws extent the laws
“"prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
personal wireless serviceswireless services
”" or or
unreasonably discriminate among providers of services.unreasonably discriminate among providers of services.
1112 Since this provision defines preemption Since this provision defines preemption
in this area, the FCC may not preempt more broadly than what the provision allows.in this area, the FCC may not preempt more broadly than what the provision allows.
1213 The FCC The FCC
’s 's preemption authority also is limited, in some cases, by a preemption authority also is limited, in some cases, by a
“"clear statementclear statement
”" rule informed by rule informed by
federalism principles. In particular, courts have held that the Commission may not preempt state federalism principles. In particular, courts have held that the Commission may not preempt state
law in a manner that upsets the law in a manner that upsets the
“"usual constitutional balanceusual constitutional balance
”" between states and the federal between states and the federal
government, absent a clear statement from Congress authorizing the preemption.government, absent a clear statement from Congress authorizing the preemption.
13
14
The FCCThe FCC
’'s ability to preempt state laws lies at the heart of many of its regulatory initiatives in s ability to preempt state laws lies at the heart of many of its regulatory initiatives in
recent years, leading to conflict with state and local governments. In particular, preemption is at recent years, leading to conflict with state and local governments. In particular, preemption is at
the forefront of the Commissionthe forefront of the Commission
’'s efforts to (1) s efforts to (1)
remove net neutrality requirements, (2establish a deregulatory environment for broadband internet; (2) promote the provision of cable television; (3) facilitate municipal (or "community") broadband, (4) maintain ) maintain
a deregulatory approach to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) servicesa deregulatory approach to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services
, (3; and (5) accelerate ) accelerate
deployment of fifth-generation wireless (5G) infrastructuredeployment of fifth-generation wireless (5G) infrastructure
, (4) facilitate municipal (or “community”) broadband, and (5) promote the provision of cable television and internet services.
.
Preemption has played a notable role in the CommissionPreemption has played a notable role in the Commission
’'s deregulatory approach to s deregulatory approach to
net neutrality, broadband internet and net neutrality (i.e., the concept that internet service providers should i.e., the concept that internet service providers should
“"treat internet traffic the same treat internet traffic the same
regardless of sourceregardless of source
.”14").15 In 2018, the FCC reversed a prior rule that had imposed a number of net In 2018, the FCC reversed a prior rule that had imposed a number of net
neutrality requirements on broadband internet access service (BIAS) providers.neutrality requirements on broadband internet access service (BIAS) providers.
1516 In so doing, the In so doing, the
Commission reclassified BIAS from a Title II Commission reclassified BIAS from a Title II
“"telecommunications servicetelecommunications service
”" to a Title I to a Title I
“"information serviceinformation service
” no longer subject to its primary jurisdiction.16."17 While the FCC has extensive regulatory authority over Title II telecommunications services, it has much more limited regulatory authority over information service providers.18 To preserve its new To preserve its new
deregulatory policy, the Commission also preempted any state laws that would impose the net deregulatory policy, the Commission also preempted any state laws that would impose the net
neutrality requirements.neutrality requirements.
1719 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit)
,18 20 invalidated the FCCinvalidated the FCC
’'s blanket preemptions blanket preemption
.19, however.21 The court reasoned that because BIAS was now an The court reasoned that because BIAS was now an
information service not subject to its regulatory jurisdiction, the Commission no longer had information service not subject to its regulatory jurisdiction, the Commission no longer had
affirmative regulatory authority to support the preemption.20 The court, nevertheless, held open the possibility that the FCC could preempt state laws on a case-by-case basis under principles of conflict preemption.21
11 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i). 12 See, e.g., City of Arlington, Tex. v. FCC, 668 F.3d 229, 250 (5th Cir. 2012) (stating that Section 332(c)(7)(A) “certainly prohibits the FCC from imposing restrictions or limitations that cannot be tied to the language of § 332(c)(7)(B)”).
13 See, e.g., Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, 541 U.S. 125, 140–41 (2004) (“[F]ederal legislation threatening to trench on the States’ arrangements for conducting their own governments should be treated with great skepticism, and read in a way that preserves a State’s chosen disposition of its own power, in the absence of the plain statement Gregory requires. . . . The want of any ‘unmistakably clear’ statement to that effect would be fatal to respondents’ reading.”) (internal citations omitted).
14 U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2016). 15 In the Matter of Restoring Internet Freedom, Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 311 (2018) [hereinafter 2018 Internet Order].
16 Id. at 312–13, paras. 2–4. 17 Id. at 426–27, paras. 194, 195. 18 References in this report to a particular circuit (e.g., the D.C. Circuit) refer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for that circuit.
19 Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1, 74 (D.C. Cir. 2019). 20 Id. at 74–76. 21 Id. at 85.
Congressional Research Service
2
link to page 22 Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
The Commission has preempted states’ regulation of VoIP services—i.e., services that enable users to make voice calls via the Internet—when the services interface with the Public Switched Telephone Network. Unlike net neutrality, the FCC has not made a determination on whether VoIP is a telecommunications service or an information service.22 Nevertheless, it has relied on its ancillary authority to impose some requirements on these services, and it has sought to preempt state laws that impose more stringent common-carrier regulations on VoIP services.23 Courts thus far have upheld the FCC’s preemption of such state laws.24
The Commission has used preemption to facilitate the rapid deployment of 5G service. In two orders issued in 2018, the Commission preempted state and local moratoria on deploying telecommunications facilities25 and preempted certain requirements on deployment of small wireless facilities (e.g., 5G small cell sites, components of 5G infrastructure typically installed in large numbers and close together in densified areas to propagate high-frequency radio waves).26 Specifically, the second of these orders preempted the charging of excessive fees and the imposition of unreasonable non-fee requirements, such as rules mandating that the small cell sites meet unreasonable aesthetic requirements.27 This order also implemented “shot clocks” governing how long state and local governments can take to review and respond to installation and construction applications.28 In August 2020, the Ninth Circuit largely upheld these 2018 orders, vacating only the FCC’s standards on permissible aesthetic requirements.29 The FCC also issued a declaratory ruling in June 2020 clarifying when state and local governments must approve requests to modify existing wireless towers or base stations.30 As with the 2018 orders, localities have challenged this declaratory ruling in the Ninth Circuit.
The FCC also has sought, unsuccessfully, to preempt state laws that limit municipalities’ ability to provide broadband service. The Commission’affirmative regulatory authority to support the preemption.22 Following the D.C. Circuit's decision, the Ninth Circuit and Second Circuit rejected preemption challenges to state broadband laws, applying similar reasoning as the D.C. Circuit.23 These decisions—coupled with a 2025 decision by the Sixth Circuit holding that the FCC must treat BIAS as an information service under the Communications Act24—suggest that states are largely free to regulate BIAS as they see fit.
The FCC has preempted state and local laws regulating cable television operators in a manner the Commission deems inconsistent with Title VI of the Communications Act. Title VI expressly preserves state and local authority to regulate cable operators by requiring them to obtain an operating franchise from a state or local franchising authority.25 Title VI places some limitations on this franchising authority, however. For instance, it caps allowable franchise fees and prohibits state and local authorities from unreasonably refusing to award a franchise.26 In a number of orders, the FCC has laid out its view of these limitations and has preempted state laws inconsistent with its interpretations.27 The FCC's orders go beyond telling states the way in which they may use the franchising process to regulate cable service. In a 2019 order, the FCC preempted any state or local fee or requirement in connection with cable operators' access to public rights of way unless expressly allowed under Title VI, even if the fee or requirement relates to non-cable services.28 This scope includes, the Commission explained, state or local fees or other requirements for cable operators' provision of broadband internet or other non-cable television services over public rights of way.29 In May 2021, the Sixth Circuit largely upheld this order in City of Eugene v. FCC.30
The FCC also has sought, unsuccessfully, to preempt state laws that limit municipalities' ability to provide broadband service. The Commission's approach to state laws restricting community s approach to state laws restricting community
broadband has varied depending on the nature of the laws and has been the subject of several broadband has varied depending on the nature of the laws and has been the subject of several
court decisions. In a 2001 order, the FCC rejected petitions from cities asking it to preempt state court decisions. In a 2001 order, the FCC rejected petitions from cities asking it to preempt state
laws imposing complete bans on municipally provided telecommunications services, concluding laws imposing complete bans on municipally provided telecommunications services, concluding
that it did not have authority to constrain statesthat it did not have authority to constrain states
’' control over their own governments without control over their own governments without
express authority from Congress.express authority from Congress.
3131 The Supreme Court upheld the Commission The Supreme Court upheld the Commission
’'s position in s position in
Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, in which the Court agreed the agency could not preempt , in which the Court agreed the agency could not preempt
without a clear statutory statement.without a clear statutory statement.
3232 In 2015, however, the FCC preempted state laws in North In 2015, however, the FCC preempted state laws in North
Carolina and Tennessee that restricted the geographical area in which municipalities could offer Carolina and Tennessee that restricted the geographical area in which municipalities could offer
broadband.broadband.
3333 The Commission distinguished these laws from those at issue in Nixon by arguing the North Carolina and Tennessee laws dealt with the manner in which interstate commerce is conducted, rather than whether municipalities may be able to participate in such commerce in the first place.34 In Tennessee v. FCC, the Sixth Circuit vacated the Commission's order.35 The court reasoned that even though these laws regulate interstate communications, they still "implicat[ed] core attributes of state sovereignty" and, under the reasoning of Nixon, the FCC could not preempt them.36
The Commission has preempted states' regulation of VoIP services—i.e., services that enable users to make voice calls via the internet—when the services interface with the public switched telephone network. Unlike for net neutrality, the FCC has not made a determination on whether VoIP is a telecommunications service or an information service.37 Nevertheless, it has relied on its ancillary authority to impose some requirements on these services, and it has sought to preempt state laws that impose more stringent common-carrier regulations on VoIP services.38 Courts thus far have upheld the FCC's preemption of such state laws.39
Lastly, the Commission has used preemption in an effort to facilitate the rapid deployment of 5G service. In two orders issued in 2018, the Commission preempted state and local moratoria on deploying telecommunications facilities40 and preempted certain requirements on deployment of small wireless facilities (e.g., 5G small cell sites, components of 5G infrastructure typically installed in large numbers and close together in densified areas to propagate high-frequency radio waves).41 Specifically, the second of these orders preempted the charging of excessive fees and the imposition of unreasonable non-fee requirements, such as rules mandating that the small cell sites meet unreasonable aesthetic requirements.42 This order also implemented "shot clocks" governing how long state and local governments can take to review and respond to installation and construction applications.43 In August 2020, the Ninth Circuit largely upheld these 2018 orders, vacating only the FCC's standards on permissible aesthetic requirements.44 The FCC also issued a declaratory ruling in June 2020; the ruling sought to "clarify the meaning" of its rules governing when state and local governments must approve requests to modify existing wireless towers or base stations.45 In a 2024 decision, the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the declaratory ruling (invalidating only a portion for being inconsistent with a prior FCC order).46
This Report discusses each of The Commission distinguished these laws from those at issue in Nixon by arguing
22 See infra “Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP).” 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 33 FCC Rcd. 7705 (2018) [hereinafter Moratorium Order].
26 Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088 (2018) [hereinafter Small Cell Order].
27 Id. at 9091, paras. 11–12. 28 Id. at 9093, para. 13. 29 City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020). 30 Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests, 35 FCC Rcd. 5977 (2020) [hereinafter June 2020 Declaratory Ruling].
31 In the Matter of Missouri Municipal League, Mem. Op. and Order, 16 FCC Rcd. 1162, 1169 (2002). 32 541 U.S. 125, 140–41 (2004). 33 City of Wilson, N.C. Petition for Preemption of N.C. Gen. Stat. Sections 160A-340 et seq., 30 FCC Rcd. 2408
Congressional Research Service
3
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
the North Carolina and Tennessee laws dealt with the manner in which interstate commerce is conducted, rather than whether municipalities may be able to participate in such commerce in the first place.34 However, in Tennessee v. FCC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) vacated the Commission’s order.35 The court reasoned that even though these laws regulate interstate communications they still “implicat[ed] core attributes of state sovereignty” and, under the reasoning of Nixon, the FCC could not preempt them.36
Lastly, the FCC has preempted state and local laws regulating cable television operators in a manner the Commission deems inconsistent with Title VI of the Act. Title VI expressly preserves state and local authority to regulate cable operators by requiring them to obtain an operating franchise from a state or local franchising authority.37 Title VI places some limitations on this franchising authority, however. For instance, it caps allowable franchise fees and prohibits state and local authorities from unreasonably refusing to award a franchise.38 In a number of orders, the FCC has laid out its view of these limitations and has preempted state laws inconsistent with its interpretations.39 The FCC’s orders go beyond telling states the way in which they may use the franchising process to regulate cable service. In a 2019 order, the FCC preempted any state or local fee or requirement in connection with cable operators’ access to public rights of way unless expressly allowed under Title VI, even if the fee or requirement relates to non-cable services.40 This includes, the Commission explained, state or local fees or other requirements for cable operators’ provision of broadband internet or other non-cable television services over public rights of way.41 In May 2021, the Sixth Circuit largely upheld this order in City of Eugene v.
FCC.42
This Report discusses each these issues in more detail below. It begins with an overview of the these issues in more detail below. It begins with an overview of the
legal framework governing the FCClegal framework governing the FCC
’'s preemption actions, first discussing general federal s preemption actions, first discussing general federal
preemption principles and then explaining the FCCpreemption principles and then explaining the FCC
’'s preemption authority under the s preemption authority under the
Communications Act. The Report next reviews recent FCC initiatives in which preemption plays Communications Act. The Report next reviews recent FCC initiatives in which preemption plays
a key role, explaining how the FCC has exercised its preemption authority and the extent to a key role, explaining how the FCC has exercised its preemption authority and the extent to
which such authority has been challenged or is uncertain.which such authority has been challenged or is uncertain.
General Federal Preemption Principles
The federal governmentThe federal government
’'s preemption of state law s preemption of state law
is “rooted” inderives from the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Constitution
’s 's Supremacy Clause.Supremacy Clause.
4347 The Supremacy Clause states that the The Supremacy Clause states that the
“"Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof," shall be the "supreme Law of the Land" and that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the
(2015).
34 Id. at 2412, 2472–74, paras. 12, 154–58. 35 832 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2016). 36 Id. at 611–13. 37 47 U.S.C. § 541. 38 Id. §§ 541, 542. 39 For an in-depth discussion of these orders, see CRS Report R46147, The Cable Franchising Authority of State and
Local Governments and the Communications Act, by Chris D. Linebaugh and Eric N. Holmes.
40 Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 34 FCC Rcd. 6844, 6892, para. 88 (2019) [hereinafter Third Order].
41 Id. at 6900, para. 105. 42 998 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2021). 43 Metro. Edison Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 767 F.3d 335, 341 (3d Cir. 2014) (“The doctrine of federal pre-emption, in turn, is rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution . . . .”).
Congressional Research Service
4
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof,” shall be the “supreme Law of the Land” and that the “Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws
of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
”44"48 Under the Supremacy Clause, Congress has the Under the Supremacy Clause, Congress has the
power to displace state law when it is acting pursuant to its enumerated constitutional powers.power to displace state law when it is acting pursuant to its enumerated constitutional powers.
45 49 As the Supreme Court has explained, federal law may preempt state law in one of three ways.As the Supreme Court has explained, federal law may preempt state law in one of three ways.
46 50 First, federal law may First, federal law may
expressly preempt state law by stating which state laws are preempted. preempt state law by stating which state laws are preempted.
47 51 Second, federal law preempts any Second, federal law preempts any
conflicting state law. Such conflict preemption occurs when state law. Such conflict preemption occurs when
either (1) either (1)
“"compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibilitycompliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility
”" or (2) or (2)
the the
“"challenged state law challenged state law
'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full
purposes and objectives of Congress.purposes and objectives of Congress.
”48'"52 Lastly, federal law may preempt an entire Lastly, federal law may preempt an entire
field of state of state
regulation by occupying that field regulation by occupying that field
“"so comprehensively that it has left no room for supplementary so comprehensively that it has left no room for supplementary
state legislation.state legislation.
”49
"53
The Supreme Court has also explained that regulations adopted by federal agencies The Supreme Court has also explained that regulations adopted by federal agencies
“"have no less have no less
preemptivepre-emptive effect effect
”" than statutes themselves. than statutes themselves.
5054 While the While the
“"purpose of Congresspurpose of Congress
”" is the is the
“"ultimate ultimate
touchstone”touchstone" in any preemption analysis, whether by statute or regulation, in any preemption analysis, whether by statute or regulation,
5155 agencies generally do agencies generally do
not need not need
“"express congressional authorizationexpress congressional authorization
”" to preempt state law. to preempt state law.
5256 Rather, the Supreme Court Rather, the Supreme Court
has said that when an agency promulgates regulations intending to preempt state law, the Court has said that when an agency promulgates regulations intending to preempt state law, the Court
will uphold the preemption unless the agency will uphold the preemption unless the agency
“"exceeded [its] statutory authority or acted exceeded [its] statutory authority or acted
arbitrarily.arbitrarily.
”53"57 Nevertheless, in some circumstances, the Court has required a plain statement from Nevertheless, in some circumstances, the Court has required a plain statement from
Congress authorizing the preemption. In particular, the Court has said that Congress must be Congress authorizing the preemption. In particular, the Court has said that Congress must be
“"unmistakably clear in the language of the statuteunmistakably clear in the language of the statute
”" if it intends to preempt state law in a way that if it intends to preempt state law in a way that
would upset the would upset the
“"usual constitutional balanceusual constitutional balance
”" between states and the federal government.58 The between states and the federal government.54 The
44 U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2. 45 City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57, 63 (1988) (“When the Federal Government acts within the authority it possesses under the Constitution, it is empowered to pre-empt state laws to the extent it is believed that such action is necessary to achieve its purposes.”); Chicago and N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, 317 (1981) (“But when Congress has chosen to legislate pursuant to its constitutional powers, then a court must find local law pre-empted by federal regulation whenever the ‘challenged state statute “stands an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”’”) (quoting Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637, 649 (1971)); Oxygenated Fuels Ass’n Inc. v. Davis, 331 F.3d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Congress has the authority, when acting pursuant to its enumerated powers, to preempt state and local laws.”). 46 Murphy v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1480 (2018) (“Our cases have identified three different types of preemption—‘conflict,’ ‘express,’ and ‘field’ . . . .”).
47 See, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011) (“When a federal law contains an express preemption clause, we ‘focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ preemptive intent.’”) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993)).
48 Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 399 (2012) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 49 Murphy, 138 S. Ct. at 1480 (quoting R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Durham Cty., 479 U.S. 130, 140 (1986)). 50 Fidelity Federal Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982). 51 Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009). 52 Id. at 154; see also City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57, 64 (1988). 53 de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. at 154; see also City of New York, 486 U.S. at 64 (“[I]n a situation where state law is claimed to be preempted by federal regulation, a narrow focus on Congress’ intent to supersede state law is misdirected, for a preemptive regulation’s force does not depend on express congressional authorization to displace state law. Instead, the correct focus is on the federal agency that seeks to displace state law and on the proper bounds of its lawful authority to undertake such action.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
54 Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991) (quoting Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985)).
Congressional Research Service
5
link to page 16 link to page 16 Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
Court has applied this clear statement rule, for instance, to preemption that would infringe on states’Court has applied this clear statement rule, for instance, to preemption that would infringe on states' management of their own officers and subdivisions. management of their own officers and subdivisions.
55 59
Overview of the FCC’'s Preemption Authority Under
the Communications Act
As with other federal agencies, the FCC generally may enact regulations that preempt state law as As with other federal agencies, the FCC generally may enact regulations that preempt state law as
long as it does not long as it does not
“"exceed[] its statutory authorityexceed[] its statutory authority
”" under the Communications Act or act under the Communications Act or act
arbitrarily. While straightforward in principle, determining whether a preemptive action exceeds arbitrarily. While straightforward in principle, determining whether a preemptive action exceeds
the FCCthe FCC
’'s statutory authority is a complex question that generally depends on two factors: s statutory authority is a complex question that generally depends on two factors:
(1) whether the Commission has jurisdictional authority over the area of law it seeks to preempt, (1) whether the Commission has jurisdictional authority over the area of law it seeks to preempt,
and (2) whether any specific provisions in the Communications Act limit or define its preemptive and (2) whether any specific provisions in the Communications Act limit or define its preemptive
authority over that area. If the Commission has jurisdiction over an area, it may generally authority over that area. If the Commission has jurisdiction over an area, it may generally
preempt state laws as long as it does not run afoul of any specific provisions that limit or define preempt state laws as long as it does not run afoul of any specific provisions that limit or define
its preemption authority.its preemption authority.
5660 There are some exceptions to this general rule, however. For instance, There are some exceptions to this general rule, however. For instance,
Courts have required a plain statement from Congress before allowing the FCC to preempt in a Courts have required a plain statement from Congress before allowing the FCC to preempt in a
manner that upsets the manner that upsets the
“"usual constitutional balanceusual constitutional balance
”" between states and the federal government. between states and the federal government.
These issues are discussed further below.These issues are discussed further below.
The FCC’'s Jurisdictional Authority
The Supreme Court and lower federal courts have recognized that, as a general matter, the FCC The Supreme Court and lower federal courts have recognized that, as a general matter, the FCC
may only preempt state laws in areas where it has statutory authority to regulate.may only preempt state laws in areas where it has statutory authority to regulate.
5761 The Supreme The Supreme
Court has explained that the FCCCourt has explained that the FCC
’'s regulatory jurisdiction takes two forms: its s regulatory jurisdiction takes two forms: its
“"primary jurisdiction" and its "ancillary jurisdiction."62 Understanding the scope of the FCC's regulatory jurisdiction is critical to understanding its preemption power.
The FCC's primary jurisdiction involves the "express and expansive authority" that the Communications Act expressly grants the FCC over "certain technologies."63primary
55 Id. (“Congressional interference with this decision of the people of Missouri, defining their constitutional officers, would upset the usual constitutional balance of federal and state powers. For this reason, it is incumbent upon the federal courts to be certain of Congress’ intent before finding that federal law overrides this balance.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Nixon v. Mo. Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 140 (2004) (“[T]he liberating preemption would come only by interposing federal authority between a State and its municipal subdivisions . . . . Hence the need to invoke our working assumption that federal legislation threatening to trench on the States’ arrangements for conducting their own governments should be treated with great skepticism, and read in a way that preserves a State’s chosen disposition of its own power, in the absence of the plain statement Gregory requires.”).
56 See United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 383 (1961) (declining to disturb an agency’s preemption decision “unless it appears from the statute or its legislative history that the accommodation is not one that Congress would have sanctioned.”). 57 See City of New York, 486 U.S. at 63–64, 66; La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S 355, 374 (1986) (“[A] federal agency may preempt state law only when and if it is acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority.”); Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1, 75 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“[I]n any area where the Commission lacks the authority to regulate, it equally lacks the power to preempt state law.”); Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 909 F.2d 1510, 1515 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (“The FCC cannot regulate (let alone preempt state regulation of) any service that does not fall within its Title II jurisdiction over common carrier services or its Title I jurisdiction over matters ‘incidental’ to communication by wire.”). As the D.C. Circuit recently explained, Congress may give the Commission preemption authority even in an area where it has no regulatory authority. Mozilla Corp., 940 F.3d at 75 (“Of course, if a federal law expressly confers upon the agency the authority to preempt, that legislative delegation creates and defines the agency’s power to displace state laws.”). While the majority maintained that Congress had to grant express preemption authority beyond the Commission’s regulatory authority, the dissent in this case argued that such a grant of preemption authority could be implicit. See id. at 101 (Williams, J., dissenting) (“The same principle undergirds a congressional choice (express or implied) to grant an agency equivalent preemptive authority without any parallel federal regulation (by Congress or a federal agency).”). See infra “
Mozilla Corp. v. FCC” for a further discussion of this case.
Congressional Research Service
6
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
jurisdiction” and its “ancillary jurisdiction.”58 Understanding the scope of the FCC’s regulatory jurisdiction is critical to understanding its preemption power.
The FCC’s primary jurisdiction involves the “express and expansive authority” that the Communications Act expressly grants the FCC over “certain technologies.”59 In particular, In particular,
different titles of the different titles of the
Communications Act give the FCC Act give the FCC
“"express and expansive authorityexpress and expansive authority
”" to regulate: (1) to regulate: (1)
“"telecommunications services,telecommunications services,
”" such as landline telephone services, as common carriers (Title such as landline telephone services, as common carriers (Title
II);II);
6064 (2) (2)
“"radio transmissions, including broadcast television, radio, and cellular telephonyradio transmissions, including broadcast television, radio, and cellular telephony
”" (Title (Title
III);III);
6165 and (3) and (3)
“"cable services, including cable televisioncable services, including cable television
”" (Title VI). (Title VI).
6266 These titles contain detailed These titles contain detailed
provisions expressly setting forth the nature and scope of the FCCprovisions expressly setting forth the nature and scope of the FCC
’'s authority. Title II, for s authority. Title II, for
instance, contains a host of requirements that apply to common carriers—such as requiring that instance, contains a host of requirements that apply to common carriers—such as requiring that
they charge they charge
“"just and reasonable rates,just and reasonable rates,
”" refrain from unreasonable discrimination, and allow other refrain from unreasonable discrimination, and allow other
carriers to interconnect with their networks—while giving the FCC discretion to carriers to interconnect with their networks—while giving the FCC discretion to
“forbear”"forbear" from from
applying Title II requirements consistent with the public interest.applying Title II requirements consistent with the public interest.
6367 Title III, as another example, Title III, as another example,
provides that, among other things, the Commission may classify radio provides that, among other things, the Commission may classify radio
and television stations, prescribe the stations, prescribe the
services rendered by such stations, regulate the apparatus used in radio communications, and services rendered by such stations, regulate the apparatus used in radio communications, and
issue licenses to operators of radio issue licenses to operators of radio
stations.64
and television stations.68
The Supreme Court has also recognized that the FCC may regulate under its The Supreme Court has also recognized that the FCC may regulate under its
“"ancillary ancillary
jurisdiction.jurisdiction.
”65"69 For the FCC to use its ancillary jurisdiction, For the FCC to use its ancillary jurisdiction,
“"two conditions must be mettwo conditions must be met
”": (1) : (1)
“"the subject of the regulationthe subject of the regulation
”" must fall under the Commission must fall under the Commission
’s “'s "general grant of jurisdictiongeneral grant of jurisdiction
” " under Title I of the Communications Act,under Title I of the Communications Act,
6670 which covers which covers
“"all interstate and foreign all interstate and foreign
communication by wire or radiocommunication by wire or radio
”"; and (2) the subject of the regulation must be ; and (2) the subject of the regulation must be
“"reasonably reasonably
ancillary”ancillary" to the to the
“"effective performanceeffective performance
”" of its primary jurisdictional responsibilities.71 Where its primary or ancillary jurisdiction applies, the FCC has authority to " of its primary jurisdictional responsibilities.67 Where its
58 AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 380–81 (1999) (“For even though ‘Commission jurisdiction’ always follows where the Act ‘applies,’ Commission jurisdiction (so-called ‘ancillary’ jurisdiction) could exist even where the Act does not ‘apply.’ The term ‘apply’ limits the substantive reach of the statute (and the concomitant scope of primary FCC jurisdiction), and the phrase ‘or to give the Commission jurisdiction’ limits, in addition, the FCC’s ancillary jurisdiction.”).
59 Mozilla Corp., 940 F.3d at 75. 60 47 U.S.C. §§, 153, 301–399b; Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642, 645 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“Congress has given the Commission express and expansive authority to regulate common carrier services, including landline telephony [under Title II].”). 61 47 U.S.C. §§ 301–399b; Comcast, 600 F.3d at 645. 62 47 U.S.C. §§ 521–573; Comcast, 600 F.3d at 645. 63 47 U.S.C. §§ 160(a), 201(b), 202(a), 251(a). 64 Id. §§ 303, 307; National Ass’n For Better Broadcasting v. FCC, 849 F.2d 665, 666 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“Title III of the Act establishes a broad grant of authority to the Commission to regulate radio (and television) communications including classification of stations, prescription of the nature of services to be rendered, regulation of the apparatus used, study of new uses and encouragement of more and effective uses of radio, and ultimately the issuance of licenses to operate stations when it finds that the public interest will be served thereby.”).
65 See, e.g., U.S. v. Sw. Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 178 (1968); U.S. v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 650 (1972). 66 See 47 U.S.C. § 152(a) (“The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio and all interstate and foreign transmission of energy by radio, which originates and/or is received within the United States, and to all persons engaged within the United States in such communication or such transmission of energy by radio, and to the licensing and regulating of all radio stations as hereinafter provided . . . .”).
67 American Library Ass’n v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689, 693 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see also S.W. Cable Co., 392 U.S. at 178 (“[T]he authority which we recognize today under § 152(a) is restricted to that reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission’s various responsibilities for the regulation of television broadcasting. The Commission may, for these purposes, issue ‘such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with law,’ as ‘public convenience, interest, or necessity requires.’”); U.S. v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. at 650) (“In [Southwestern Cable], . . . we sustained the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission
Congressional Research Service
7
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
primary or ancillary jurisdiction applies, the FCC has authority to “prescribe such rules and regulations” that “prescribe such rules and regulations" that "may be necessary in the execution of its functionsmay be necessary in the execution of its functions
”" and are not and are not
“"inconsistent inconsistent
with [the Communications Act].with [the Communications Act].
”68
"72
The CommissionThe Commission
’'s ancillary jurisdiction is limited, however, by s ancillary jurisdiction is limited, however, by
Sectionsection 2(b) of the 2(b) of the
Communications Act. Section Act. Section
2(b) says that, except for several specific exceptions, 2(b) says that, except for several specific exceptions,
“"nothing [in the nothing [in the
Communications Act] shall be construed to Act] shall be construed to
apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to . . . charges, classifications, apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to . . . charges, classifications,
practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication
service.service.
”69"73 The Supreme Court has explained that, while this section does not limit the FCC The Supreme Court has explained that, while this section does not limit the FCC
’s 's regulatory authority where the regulatory authority where the
Communications Act expressly applies (i.e., its primary jurisdiction), it does carve Act expressly applies (i.e., its primary jurisdiction), it does carve
out intrastate matters from the Commissionout intrastate matters from the Commission
’'s ancillary jurisdiction.s ancillary jurisdiction.
70 However, the74 The Court has also Court has also
suggested (without expressly deciding) that suggested (without expressly deciding) that
Sectionsection 2(b) 2(b)
’'s limitation does not apply when it is s limitation does not apply when it is
“"not possible to separate the interstate and the intrastate components of the asserted FCC not possible to separate the interstate and the intrastate components of the asserted FCC
regulation.regulation.
”71"75 Lower courts have fleshed out this Lower courts have fleshed out this
“"impossibility exceptionimpossibility exception
”" further. These cases further. These cases
generally hold that generally hold that
Sectionsection 2(b) does not prevent the Commission from preempting state law 2(b) does not prevent the Commission from preempting state law
where:where (1) (1)
“"the matter to be regulated has both interstate and intrastate aspectsthe matter to be regulated has both interstate and intrastate aspects
”"; (2) ; (2)
“"preemption preemption
is necessary to protect a valid federal regulatory objectiveis necessary to protect a valid federal regulatory objective
”"; and (3) ; and (3)
“"state regulation would state regulation would
negate the exercise by the [Commission] of its own lawful authority because regulation of the negate the exercise by the [Commission] of its own lawful authority because regulation of the
interstate aspects of the matter cannot be interstate aspects of the matter cannot be
‘unbundled’'unbundled' from regulation of the intrastate aspects. from regulation of the intrastate aspects.
”72 "76
Specific Statutory Provisions Addressing Preemption
Even when the FCC has jurisdictional authority, its preemption must be consistent with any Even when the FCC has jurisdictional authority, its preemption must be consistent with any
express preemption provisions in the Communications Act. In a number of areas, the express preemption provisions in the Communications Act. In a number of areas, the
Communications Act Act
explicitly spells out the extent to which statesexplicitly spells out the extent to which states
’' regulatory authority over a particular technology or service is displaced or preserved. Where such provisions apply, the Commission may not preempt state laws beyond what the statute allows.77
For example, section 253 of the Communications Act (under Title II) defines the FCC's preemption authority over state laws regulating telecommunication services. It provides that "no State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."78 Section 253 further states that if the FCC determines that any state or local requirement violates this provision, it "shall," after notice and an opportunity for public comment, "preempt the enforcement of such statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct such violation or inconsistency."79 Section 253 also preserves a sphere of state and local authority, providing that "[n]othing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis."80
Similarly, section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act (under Title III) defines the extent of states' regulatory authority over "personal wireless services." In particular, section regulatory authority over a particular technology or
to regulate the new industry, at least to the extent ‘reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission’s various responsibilities for the regulation of television broadcasting’ . . . .”).
68 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) (“The Commission may perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.”); see also EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. v. FCC, 704 F.3d 992, 998 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (applying Section 4(i) of the Communications Act to the FCC’s ancillary jurisdiction). 69 47 U.S.C. § 152(b). 70 AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 379–82 n.8 (1999) (rejecting the argument that Section 2(b) prevents the FCC from issuing rules implementing Title II’s local competition provisions on the ground that Section 201(b) gives the FCC authority to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of the Act,” but noting that “[i]nsofar as Congress has remained silent, . . . , § 152(b) continues to function” and the FCC could not “regulate any aspect of intrastate communication . . . on the theory that it had an ancillary effect on matters within the Commission’s primary jurisdiction.”).
71 La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 375 n.4 (1986) (distinguishing cases where lower courts held it was “not possible to separate the interstate and the intrastate components of the asserted FCC regulation.”) (emphasis in the original).
72 Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1, 77–78 (D.C. Cir. 2019); California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217, 1243 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The impossibility exception, however, is a limited one. The FCC may not justify a preemption order merely by showing that some of the preempted state regulation would, if not preempted, frustrate FCC regulatory goals. Rather, the FCC bears the burden of justifying its entire preemption order by demonstrating that the order is narrowly tailored to preempt only such state regulations as would negate valid FCC regulatory goals.”); Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm’n v. FCC, 483 F.3d 570, 578 (8th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he “impossibility exception” of 47 U.S.C. § 152(b) allows the FCC to preempt state regulation of a service if (1) it is not possible to separate the interstate and intrastate aspects of the service, and (2) federal regulation is necessary to further a valid federal regulatory objective, i.e., state regulation would conflict with federal regulatory policies.”) (citing Qwest Corp. v. Scott, 380 F.3d 367, 372 (8th Cir. 2004)).
Congressional Research Service
8
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
service is displaced or preserved. Where such provisions apply, the Commission may not preempt state laws beyond what the statute allows.73
For example, Section 332(c)(7) of the Act (under Title III) defines the extent of states’ regulatory authority over “personal wireless services.” In particular, Section 332(c)(7)(B) provides that state 332(c)(7)(B) provides that state
or local regulations governing the or local regulations governing the
“"placement, construction, and modification of personal placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless services facilities . . . (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of wireless services facilities . . . (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services.provision of personal wireless services.
”74 However, Section 332(c)(7)(A) provides"81 Section 332(c)(7)(B) further allows persons to seek expedited judicial review if they have been adversely affected by a state or local government action inconsistent with the provision's limitations.82 At the same time, section 332(c)(7)(A) preserves state and local authority by providing that, other that, other
than than
Sectionsection 332(c)(7)(B) 332(c)(7)(B)
’'s express limitations, nothing s express limitations, nothing
“"shall limit or affect the authority of a shall limit or affect the authority of a
State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.
”75 Circuit courts have held that the FCC may implement Section 332(c)(7)(B)’s limitations by clarifying"83 While section 332(c)(7) does not expressly address the FCC's ability to implement section 332(c)(7)(B)'s limitations, federal courts of appeals have held that the FCC may use its general rulemaking authority under the Communications Act to clarify the extent to which the extent to which
state laws are preempted by this section; however, in doing so, the Commission may not impose state laws are preempted by this section; however, in doing so, the Commission may not impose
restrictions or limitations that restrictions or limitations that
“"cannot be tied to the language of § 332(c)(7)(B)."84 These cases, however, were based on the Chevron doctrine of agency deference, which has since been overturned by the Supreme Court.85 As a result, the FCC's authority to implement this section may be in doubt.
cannot be tied to the language of § 332(c)(7)(B).”76
Similarly, Section 253 of the Act (under Title II) defines the FCC’s preemption authority over state laws regulating telecommunication services. It provides that “no State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.”77 Section 253 further states that if the FCC determines that any state or local requirement violates this provision, it “shall,” after notice and an opportunity for public comment, “preempt the enforcement of such statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct such violation or inconsistency.”78 However, similar to Section 322(c)(7)(A), Section 253 also preserves a sphere of state and local authority, providing that “[n]othing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis.”79
Other parts of the Communications Act define in even greater detail the bounds of state authority Other parts of the Communications Act define in even greater detail the bounds of state authority
over particular areas. For instance, Title VI in large part deals with state and local governmentsover particular areas. For instance, Title VI in large part deals with state and local governments
’ ' ability to award franchises to cable operators.ability to award franchises to cable operators.
8086 While this title requires cable operators to obtain a While this title requires cable operators to obtain a
franchise from a state or local franchising authority before providing cable service, it also franchise from a state or local franchising authority before providing cable service, it also
prohibits franchising authorities from, among other things, (1) prohibits franchising authorities from, among other things, (1)
“"unreasonably refus[ing]unreasonably refus[ing]
”" to award franchises, (2) establishing requirements for "video programming or other information services," or (3) imposing franchise fees exceeding 5% of the cable operator's gross annual revenue.87 Title VI further "preempt[s] and supersede[s]" " to award 73 See, e.g., Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 75 (“Of course, if a federal law expressly confers upon the agency the authority to preempt, that legislative delegation creates and defines the agency’s power to displace state laws.”).
74 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B). 75 Id. § 332(c)(7)(A). 76 City of Arlington v. FCC, 668 F.3d 229, 250–54 (5th Cir. 2012) (stating that Section 332(c)(7)(A) “certainly prohibits the FCC from imposing restrictions or limitations that cannot be tied to the language of § 332(c)(7)(B),” but also holding that the FCC is “entitled to deference with respect to its exercise of authority to implement § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) and (v)”); see also Up State Tower Co., LLC v. Town of Kiantone, New York, 718 F. App’x. 29, 31 n.1 (2d Cir. 2017) (“We agree with the 5th Circuit that because the two FCC Orders cited herein are reasonable constructions of § 332(c)(7)(B), they ‘are thus entitled to Chevron deference.’”) (citing City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 256).
77 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). 78 Id. § 253(a), (d). 79 Id. § 253(c). 80 In the context of cable television, a “franchise” refers to the right to operate a cable system in a given area. For more information, see CRS Report R46147, The Cable Franchising Authority of State and Local Governments and the
Communications Act, by Chris D. Linebaugh and Eric N. Holmes.
Congressional Research Service
9
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
franchises, (2) establishing requirements for “video programming or other information services,” or (3) imposing franchise fees exceeding 5% of the cable operator’s gross annual revenue.81 Title VI further “preempt[s] and supersede[s]” “any provision of law of any State, political any provision of law of any State, political
subdivision, or agency thereof . . . which is inconsistent with this chapter.subdivision, or agency thereof . . . which is inconsistent with this chapter.
”82
"88
Later sections of this report discuss the FCCLater sections of this report discuss the FCC
’'s implementation of these various preemption s implementation of these various preemption
provisions and recent disputes surrounding that implementation.provisions and recent disputes surrounding that implementation.
Clear Statement Rule
Even if the FCC has regulatory jurisdiction over the area it seeks to preempt and its preemption Even if the FCC has regulatory jurisdiction over the area it seeks to preempt and its preemption
accords with any specific statutory provisions, its ability to preempt may still be limited by a accords with any specific statutory provisions, its ability to preempt may still be limited by a
“"clear statementclear statement
”" rule. In particular, as previously discussed, the Supreme Court has said that rule. In particular, as previously discussed, the Supreme Court has said that
Congress must be Congress must be
“"unmistakably clear in the language of the statuteunmistakably clear in the language of the statute
”" if it intends to preempt state if it intends to preempt state
law in a way that would upset the law in a way that would upset the
“"usual constitutional balanceusual constitutional balance
”" between states and the federal between states and the federal
government.government.
8389 The Supreme Court has relied on this rule to vacate the FCC The Supreme Court has relied on this rule to vacate the FCC
’'s preemption of state s preemption of state
laws governing a statelaws governing a state
’'s municipalities. Most relevantly, and as discussed later in this report, the s municipalities. Most relevantly, and as discussed later in this report, the
Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit have held that the FCC does not have authority to preempt Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit have held that the FCC does not have authority to preempt
state laws prohibiting or restricting municipalities from providing broadband service because, in state laws prohibiting or restricting municipalities from providing broadband service because, in
part, Congress had not provided a part, Congress had not provided a
“"plain statementplain statement
”" of its intent to preempt such laws. of its intent to preempt such laws.
84 90
Current Issues
(2025)
The FCCThe FCC
’'s ability to preempt state laws has been at the heart of many of its regulatory initiatives s ability to preempt state laws has been at the heart of many of its regulatory initiatives
in recent years. In particular, preemption in recent years. In particular, preemption
ishas been at the forefront of the Commission at the forefront of the Commission
’s's stated efforts to efforts to
: (1) remove net neutrality requirements; (2) maintain a lightly-regulated approach to VoIP (1) establish a deregulatory environment for broadband internet; (2) promote the provision of cable services; services;
(3) accelerate deployment of fifth-generation wireless (5G) infrastructure; (4) facilitate municipal (or “community”) broadband; and (5) promote the provision of cable and internet services(3) facilitate municipal (or "community") broadband; (4) maintain a lightly regulated approach to VoIP services; and (4) accelerate deployment of fifth-generation wireless (5G) infrastructure. State . State
and local governments have challenged these initiatives in court, arguing that the FCC has and local governments have challenged these initiatives in court, arguing that the FCC has
exceeded its preemption authority. In some cases, courts have agreed that the FCC overstepped its exceeded its preemption authority. In some cases, courts have agreed that the FCC overstepped its
statutory bounds.statutory bounds.
91 In other cases, courts have upheld, or largely upheld, the FCC' In other cases, the legal challenges are ongoing, leaving a cloud of uncertainty over the FCC’s actions.
s actions.92
This section discusses the FCCThis section discusses the FCC
’'s preemption efforts in each of these areas, including the legal s preemption efforts in each of these areas, including the legal
challenges and issues arising from them.challenges and issues arising from them.
Net Neutrality
Preemption has played a key part in the FCC’s efforts to establish a nation-wide policy on “net neutrality,” which is the “principle that broadband providers must treat all internet traffic the same regardless of source.”85 In 2018, the FCC issued an order removing net neutrality regulations at the federal level.86 At the same time, the Commission attempted to preempt any
81 47 U.S.C. §§ 541(a)(1), 542(b), 544(b). 82 Id. § 556(c). 83 Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991) (quoting Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanion, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985)).
84 Nixon v. Mo. Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 140–41 (2004); Tennessee v. FCC, 832 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2016). 85 USTA v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2016). 86 In the Matter of Restoring Internet Freedom, Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 311
Congressional Research Service
10
link to page 20 Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
state net neutrality regulations.87 In the case of Mozilla v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit upheld most of the FCC’s repeal of its net neutrality rules.88 However, the court vacated the FCC’s blanket preemption of any state net neutrality laws.89 As a result, states may be able to enact their own net neutrality requirements. Some states, such as California, have already done so.90 Nevertheless, Mozilla left room for state laws to be preempted on a case-by-case basis under principles of conflict preemption.91 Thus, if a later court determines that a state law “actually undermines” the FCC’s order, then such a law would be preempted and unenforceable.92 This section discusses the FCC’s actions, the D.C. Circuit’s Mozilla opinion, and ongoing issues surrounding state net neutrality laws.
FCC’s Actions
As described in more detail in CRS Report R40616, The Federal Net Neutrality Debate: Access
to Broadband Networks, by Patricia Moloney Figliola, the FCC’s approach towards net neutrality in recent years has been in flux. In particular, the FCC has toggled between classifying broadband Internet access service (BIAS) as either: 1) a “telecommunications service,” meaning a common carrier subject to regulation under Title II of the Act, or 2) an “information service” as defined in Title I of the Act.93 The FCC has discretion to choose which category is most appropriate for BIAS, as evidenced by the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit’s application of the Chevron doctrine—under which courts generally defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision—to repeatedly uphold the Commission’s different classification choices.94
The Commission’s choice between the two categories is significant because they have been treated as “mutually exclusive,” i.e., an information service is not subject to regulations governing a telecommunications service under Title II.95 Because Title I does not give the FCC any affirmative regulatory authority over information services—and because information services
(2018) [hereinafter 2018 Internet Order].
87 2018 Internet Order, 33 FCC Rcd. at 427, para. 195 (“We therefore preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order.”).
88 Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 18. 89 Id. at 74. 90 See “Next Steps.” 91 Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 85. 92 Id. 93 47 U.S.C. §§ 153(24), (50)–(51), (53); see also Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 17 (“[T]he 1996 Telecommunications Act creates two potential classifications for broadband Internet: ‘telecommunications services’ under Title II of the Act and ‘information services’ under Title I. These similar-sounding terms carry considerable significance: Title II entails common carrier status, see 47 U.S.C. § 153(51) (defining ‘telecommunications carrier’), and triggers an array of statutory restrictions and requirements (subject to forbearance at the Commission’s election)”).
94 Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 986–1000 (2005); U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674–706 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 18–35 (2019).
95 See Brand X, 545 U.S. at 976 (“Information-service providers, by contrast, are not subject to mandatory common-carrier regulation under Title II, though the Commission has jurisdiction to impose additional regulatory obligations under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction to regulate interstate and foreign communications”); Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 19 (“[G]iven that ‘telecommunications service’ and ‘information service’ have been treated as mutually exclusive by the Commission since the late 1990s, a premise Petitioners do not challenge, we view Brand X as binding precedent in this case.”) (internal citations omitted).
Congressional Research Service
11
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
are necessarily outside of Title II—the Commission may only regulate information services pursuant to its ancillary authority or some other non-Title II source of affirmative authority.96
Furthermore, even if the FCC uses a non-Title II source of authority, it may not use this authority to impose net neutrality regulations on information service providers that amount to “per se” common carrier regulations. In a 2010 order, the FCC tried to impose net neutrality rules while still classifying BIAS as an information service.97 The Commission grounded its legal authority for the rule in a non-Title II provision—Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 706 amended the Communications Act to, among other things, direct the Commission to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis” of “advanced telecommunications capability.”98 The D.C. Circuit rejected this approach in its 2014 decision in Verizon v. FCC.99 The court deferred to the FCC’s interpretation that Section 706 was an independent grant of authority, sufficient to support the issuance of rules in the 2010 order.100 Nevertheless, the D.C. Circuit held that the bulk of these net neutrality rules (specifically, rules prohibiting BIAS providers from blocking or discriminating against lawful content) amounted to “per se” common carrier rules imposed on non-common carriers, i.e., information service providers.101 According to the court, these rules ran “afoul” of the Act’s definition of telecommunications carriers, which provides that “a telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this chapter only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services.”102
Given the Verizon decision, the FCC issued a new order in 2015 (2015 Open Internet Order) that addressed the flaw identified in Verizon by reclassifying BIAS as a Title II telecommunications service.103 The 2015 Open Internet Order, among other things, imposed three bright-line net neutrality rules on BIAS providers. These rules prohibited BIAS providers from: (1) blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; (2) throttling (i.e., impairing or degrading) lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; and (3) engaging in paid prioritization, defined as favoring some internet traffic over others in exchange for consideration.104 The order also imposed a more flexible standard referred to as the “General Conduct Rule,” which prohibited BIAS providers from “unreasonably interfer[ing] or unreasonably disavantag[ing]” users from accessing the content or services of their choice.105 The following year, in United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit upheld the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order in its entirety.106
The Commission reversed course in 2018, however, and issued a new order titled “Restoring Internet Freedom” (2018 RIF Order).107 The 2018 RIF Order reclassified broadband Internet as an
96 See Brand X, 545 U.S. at 976; Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 76 (“Title I is not an independent source of regulatory authority.”) (internal citations omitted).
97 See In re Preserving the Open Internet, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd. 17905 (2010). 98 Id. at 17968–72; 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 99 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 100 Id. at 635–49. 101 Id. at 650–59, 701. 102 Id. at 650; see also 47 U.S.C. § 153(51). 103 In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd. 5601 (2015) [hereinafter 2015 Open Internet Order].
104 Id. at 5607–08. 105 Id. at 5609. 106 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016). 107 In the Matter of Restoring Internet Freedom, Report an Order, and Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 331 (2018) [hereinafter 2018
Congressional Research Service
12
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
“information service” and eliminated the bright-line rules and General Conduct Rule.108 Along with removing BIAS from Title II, the FCC also forsook any regulatory authority over BIAS based on Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, concluding that it was not an independent grant of regulatory authority.109 Furthermore, most relevant to this report, the 2018 RIF Order broadly preempted any state or local laws “that would effectively impose rules or requirements that [it] repealed or decided to refrain from imposing,” or that imposed “more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service” addressed by the 2018 RIF Order.110 The Commission reasoned that “[a]llowing state and local governments to adopt their own separate requirements, which could impose far greater burdens than the federal regulatory regime, could significantly disrupt the balance we strike here.”111 Consequently, it concluded that it should “exercise [its] authority to preempt any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with the federal deregulatory approach” it adopted.112 While the 2018 RIF Order reclassified BIAS and removed the net neutrality requirements, it left in place (and in some cases enhanced) existing transparency requirements, requiring providers to disclose, among other things, any blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization practices.113 The Commission also explained that the 2018 RIF Order restored the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) jurisdiction over BIAS providers, since such providers are no longer common carriers, and that the FTC would be able to police BIAS providers’ data security and privacy practices.114
Mozilla Corp. v. FCC
In 2019, the D.C. Circuit weighed in on the 2018 RIF Order’s legality in Mozilla Corp. v. FCC.115 While the court upheld the bulk of the order, it vacated the 2018 RIF Order’s “sweeping” preemption of “any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with [its] deregulatory approach.”116 The court reasoned that the FCC no longer has affirmative regulatory authority over BIAS, now that it is classified as an information service, and the Commission could not preempt state law in an area over which it does not have regulatory authority without an express authorization from Congress.117 The court left open, however, the possibility that specific state laws might be preempted on a case-by-case basis under principles of conflict preemption.118 While the decision was unanimous on other aspects of the case, one member of the three judge
RIF Order].
108 Id. at 312–13, paras. 2–4. 109 Id. at 470–80, paras. 268–83. 110 Id. at 427, para. 195. 111 Id. at 426, para. 194. 112 Id. 113 Id. at 437–50, paras 215–38. As authority for these transparency requirements, the Commission cited section 257 of the Communications Act, which directs the commission to “identify[] and eliminat[e] . . . market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the provision and ownership of telecommunications services and information services, or in the provision of parts or services to providers of telecommunications services and information services.” 47 U.S.C. § 257(a). 114 Id. at 419–20, 434, paras. 181–84, 208. Under the Federal Trade Commission Act, common carriers are exempt from the FTC’s jurisdiction. See 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2). 115 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019). 116 Id. at 74. 117 Id. at 74–76. 118 Id. at 85.
Congressional Research Service
13
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
panel, Judge Williams, dissented from the court’s preemption holding.119 Among other things, he reasoned that the majority’s position asymmetrically favored regulation over deregulation by only allowing the Commission to ensure a national policy if it chose to affirmatively regulate BIAS under Title II.120 Judge Williams also expressed skepticism that any laws would be subject to conflict preemption, given the majority’s rationale for overturning the Order’s express preemption provision.121
The majority and dissenting opinions in Mozilla contain a vigorous discussion of the FCC’s preemption authority and demonstrate the challenges with determining the bounds of this authority in particular cases. The majority opinion in particular will likely inform district courts as they consider whether state net neutrality laws are preempted by the 2018 RIF Order under principles of conflict preemption. Consequently, these opinions are worth examining in further detail.
Majority Opinion’s Preemption Analysis
In its preemption analysis, the court started with the basic principle, articulated by the Supreme Court, that an agency “may preempt state law only when and if it is acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority.”122 From there, the court reasoned that, “[b]y the same token, in any area where the Commission lacks the authority to regulate, it equally lacks the power to preempt state law.”123 The court recognized, as a caveat, that, “[o]f course, if a federal law expressly confers upon the agency the authority to preempt, that legislative delegation creates and defines the agency’s power to displace state laws.”124
Applying this framework to the 2018 RIF Order’s preemption, the court concluded that the preemption was unlawful because the FCC did not have regulatory authority over BIAS and Congress had not granted it authority to displace state laws in areas in which it does not have regulatory power.125 The court explained that the Commission’s “regulatory jurisdiction falls into two categories”: (1) the “express and expansive authority” it has over common carriers under Title II, radio transmissions under Title III, and cable services under Title VI; and (2) its “ancillary authority,” allowing it to regulate matters “reasonably ancillary to the effective performance” of its express authority.126 The FCC’s preemption “could not possibly be an exercise of the Commission’s express statutory authority,” the court said, because by reclassifying BIAS as an information service the FCC “placed broadband outside of its Title II jurisdiction.”127 Further, the court reasoned, broadband is not a radio transmission under Title III or cable service under Title VI.128 The preemption also did not fall under the FCC’s ancillary authority because it was not related to the Commission’s “effective performance” of its “statutorily mandated responsibilities” under Title II, III, or VI.129 Since the Commission had neither express nor
119 Id. at 95 (Williams, J., dissenting). 120 Id. at 99–100. 121 Id. at 106–07. 122 Id. at 74–75 (quoting La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986)). 123 Id. at 75. 124 Id. 125 Id. at 75–76. 126 Id. at 124. 127 Id. at 124–25 (emphasis in original). 128 Id. 129 Id. at 25. The court further noted that the Commission “seemingly agrees,” as it did not claim ancillary authority in
Congressional Research Service
14
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
ancillary authority—and since “Congress [did not] statutorily grant the Commission freestanding preemption authority to displace state laws even in areas in which it does not otherwise have regulatory power”—the court concluded that the preemption directive could not stand.”130
While the Commission articulated two other theories for its preemption—the “impossibility exception” and the “federal policy of nonregulation for information services”—the court rejected both in turn.131 The impossibility exception, the court explained, is simply an exception to Section 2(b) of the Act’s limitation on the FCC’s authority over “intrastate communication.”132 According to the court, the impossibility exception “presupposes the existence of statutory authority to regulate,” and the Commission may not use it as a “substitute for that necessary delegation of power from Congress.”133
The court found the FCC’s reliance on a “federal policy of nonregulation for information services” equally unavailing.134 The Commission marshalled several different provisions supporting this policy, including (1) Section 230(b)(2), which states that the “policy of the United states [is] to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market . . . for the Internet,” (2) the statement in the “telecommunications carrier” definition that telecommunications carriers shall only be treated as common carriers “to the extent [they are] engaged in providing telecommunications services,” and (3) Section 10(e),135 which provides that states may not enforce Title II provisions that the Commission has chosen not to apply.136 None of these provisions, the court explained, give the FCC affirmative authority to regulate information services. The policy statement in Section 230(b)(2) is “just that”—a policy statement, rather than a “delegation of regulatory authority.”137 Similarly, the definition of telecommunications carrier is “not an independent source of regulatory authority,” but in fact contains a “limitation on the Commission’s authority.”138 Lastly, because the Commission took broadband “out of Title II,” the court explained, Section 10(e) “has no work to do here,” as it only applies to forbearance under Title II.139
Lastly, the court rejected the argument—which it said was “invent[ed]” by the dissenting opinion—that the Commission’s preemption power flows from its authority, under the Chevron doctrine, to classify BIAS as either a Title I information service provider or a Title II telecommunications service.140 The majority explained that the dissenting opinion “makes the mistake of collapsing the distinction between (i) the Commission’s authority to make a threshold classification decision, and (ii) the authority to issue affirmative and State-displacing legal commands within the bounds of the classification scheme the Commission has selected (here,
the 2018 RIF Order or its briefing. Id. at 126.
130 Id. at 75–76. 131 Id. at 76–80. 132 Id. at 77–78. 133 Id. at 78. 134 Id. 135 47 U.S.C. § 160(e). 136 Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 78–80. 137 Id. at 78–79. 138 Id. at 79 (emphasis in original). 139 Id. 140 Id. at 82.
Congressional Research Service
15
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
Title I).”141 According to the majority, the “agency’s power to do the former says nothing about its authority to do the latter.”142
While the court vacated the 2018 RIF Order’s express preemption directive, it explained that it was not considering whether the order could have preemptive effect under principles of conflict preemption. The court explained that conflict preemption—which asks whether a state law “under the circumstances of the particular case stands as an obstacle to the objectives of Congress”—is inherently fact-specific and cannot be resolved in the abstract, “let alone in gross.”143 It recognized, however, that “[i]f the Commission can explain how a state practice actually undermines the 2018 RIF Order, then it can invoke conflict preemption.”144
Judge Williams’s Dissent
While the panel was unanimous on the bulk of the decision, Judge Williams dissented from the preemption portion of the majority opinion.145 Judge Williams argued that the Communications Act impliedly gave the Commission authority for its broad preemption.146 Judge Williams reasoned that, under Chevron, “Congress implicitly delegated to the FCC the power to determine whether to locate broadband under Title II, where it would be potentially subject to the full gamut of regulations designed for natural monopoly, or under Title I, which itself authorizes virtually no federal regulation.”147 Judge Williams argued that “[t]he consequences of the Commission’s choice of Title I depend on its having authority to preempt,” as without it the Commission “de facto yields authority over interstate communications to the states.”148 The majority’s refusal to recognize this authority, Judge Williams contended, resulted in an “asymmetry” based on the majority’s “staunch[] belie[f] that preemption serves solely to protect affirmative federal regulations,” rather than a federal deregulatory scheme.149
Judge Williams also criticized the specific logic behind the majority’s decision. In particular, he faulted the majority’s reliance on the “maxim” that an agency may only preempt state law if either (1) it has “affirmative regulatory authority” over the area, or (2) there is an express
statutory authorization otherwise giving it preemption authority.150 First, Judge Williams took issue with the maxim itself because it requires express authorization in the absence of regulatory authority.151 Judge Williams wrote that the formulation was “entirely the majority’s handiwork” and is at odds with “our living in a world where judicial interpretation of statutes rarely insists on
141 Id. at 84. 142 Id.
143 Id. at 81. 144 Id. at 85. 145 Id. at 95 (Williams, J., dissenting). 146 Id. at 96–97 (“But Supreme court decisions make clear that a federal agency’s authority to preempt state law need not be expressly granted . . . . Inquiry into that question proceeds in the usual way of discerning congressional intent. . . . Congress implicitly delegated to the FCC the power to determine whether to locate broadband under Title II, where it would be potentially subject to the full gamut of regulations designed for natural monopoly, or under Title I, which itself authorizes virtually no federal regulation. . . . The consequences of the Commission's choice of Title I depend on its having authority to preempt.”).
147 Id. at 97 (Williams, J., dissenting). 148 Id. 149 Id. at 99 (Williams, J., dissenting). 150 Id. at 100–01 (Williams, J., dissenting). 151 Id.
Congressional Research Service
16
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
an express provision outside the context of a clear statement rule or its equivalent.”152 According to Judge Williams, because Congress may preempt state law even when it chooses not to regulate, it may also make a “choice (express or implied) to grant an agency equivalent preemptive authority without any parallel federal regulation.”153
Along with questioning the maxim itself, Judge Williams argued that it is “inapplicable” because the Commission does in fact have affirmative regulatory authority over BIAS.154 Judge Williams explained that there is “no doubt” that “the day before adoption of [the 2018 RIF Order], the Commission had authority to apply Title II to broadband.”155 While the Commission’s reclassification of broadband “forswore any current intention to use Title II vis-à-vis broadband” it was not “a permanent renunciation of that power.”156
Judge Williams further rejected the idea that case-by-case application of conflict preemption principles would save the order from being “eviscerate[ed].”157 According to Judge Williams, the “majority’s view of preemption seems to render any conflict unimaginable” because the majority “rejects the idea that the Commission has exercised authority as to which [a state’s] enforcement of a Title II equivalent could stand as an obstacle.”158 The majority, Judge Williams wrote, “conspicuously never offers an explanation of how a state regulation could ever conflict with the federal white space to which its reasoning consigns broadband.”159
Next Steps
The D.C. Circuit’s decision in Mozilla is now final. The D.C. Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc, and the parties did not seek Supreme Court review by the July 6, 2020 deadline.160 With the change in presidential administration, it is possible that the FCC might reconsider its position on net neutrality. The new Acting Chairperson, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, dissented from the 2018 RIF Order, arguing that the decision put the FCC “on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the American public.”161 Absent new FCC action, future legal disputes surrounding net neutrality will likely focus on state laws.162
As discussed in the previous section, Mozilla left an opening for states to impose net neutrality requirements at the state level. A number of states have already enacted such laws. Some of these laws—specifically those of California and Washington—would require all BIAS providers
152 Id. at 100 (Williams, J., dissenting). 153 Id. at 101 (Williams, J., dissenting). 154 Id. 155 Id. 156 Id. 157 Id. at 106 (Williams, J., dissenting). 158 Id. (internal quotations omitted). 159 Id. 160 Order Denying Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, No. 18-1051, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3726 (D.C. Cir. 2020); Amy Keating and Alan Davidson, Next Steps for Net Neutrality, BLOG.MOZILLA.ORG (July 6, 2020), https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2020/07/06/next-steps-for-net-neutrality/ (“Today is the deadline to petition the Supreme Court for review of the D.C. Circuit decision in Mozilla v. FCC. After careful consideration, Mozilla—as well as its partners in this litigation—are not seeking Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit decision.”).
161 2018 RIF Order, 33 FCC Rcd. at 846–48 (Statement of Jessica Rosenworcel, dissenting). 162 Parties may no longer bring actions challenging the 2018 RIF Order, since the 60 day period for challenging the Order has passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2344 (“Any party aggrieved by the final order may, within 60 days after its entry, file a petition to review the order in the court of appeals wherein venue lies.”).
Congressional Research Service
17
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
operating in the states to comply with net neutrality requirements similar to those in the 2015 Open Internet Order.163 Other laws or executive orders—such as those of Vermont and New York—would prohibit state agencies or instrumentalities from contracting with BIAS providers unless they certify they comply with net neutrality principles.164
Some of these state net neutrality laws are subject to legal challenges. In particular, BIAS providers have brought legal actions in federal district courts arguing that the 2018 RIF Order preempts California’s and Vermont’s laws.165 Courts have not yet passed judgment on these challenges. However, on February 23, 2021, the district court overseeing challenges to California’s law rejected the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, thus allowing the law to go into effect.166 Furthermore, on July 7, 2020, in a case that could be a bellwether for these state net neutrality cases, a federal district court rejected arguments that the 2018 RIF Order preempted a Maine law imposing privacy requirements on BIAS providers.167 The plaintiffs argued that Maine’s law conflicted with the policy established by the 2018 RIF Order that the “best way to protect consumers’ privacy interest without imposing costly burdens on [internet service providers] is to pair mandatory privacy disclosures with FTC enforcement of those disclosures.”168 The court rejected this argument, reasoning that the Order “is not an instance of affirmative deregulation,” but instead was the FCC’s decision “that it lacked authority to regulate in the first place and would defer to the FTC’s enforcement of existing antitrust and consumer protection laws.”169 Even assuming that an “abdication of authority” could result in preemption, the court said that plaintiffs failed to identify “any conflict between the FCC’s proclamation that the FTC is the proper federal regulator of ISPs, and Maine’s decision to impose privacy protections at the state level.”170 While this case dealt with state-level privacy requirements, courts weighing challenges to state net neutrality laws might take a similar approach, concluding that the 2018 RIF Order cannot preempt state laws because it is an “abdication,” rather than an affirmative assertion, of authority.171 On the other hand, the argument that state net neutrality laws conflict with the 2018 RIF Order may be stronger than in the privacy context, since these laws generally re-impose the same requirements the Order removed.
Courts may be even less likely to hold that the 2018 RIF Order preempts state laws that only prohibit state agencies and subdivisions from contracting with BIAS providers unless they abide by net neutrality requirements. As discussed in more detail below, the Supreme Court has said that Congress needs to make a “plain statement” in order to preempt state law in a way that would infringe on states’ management of their own officers and subdivisions.172
163 California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 3100–3104 (2018); WASH. REV. CODE § 19.385.020 (2018). California’s law goes beyond the 2015 Open Internet Order by prohibiting zero rating practices. CAL. CIV. CODE § 3101.
164 VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 3, § 348 (2018); id. tit. 3 app’x, § 3-85; N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 9, § 8.175 (2018). 165 Complaint, Am. Cable Ass’n v. Scott, No. 2:18-CV-00167 (D. Vt. Oct. 18, 2018); First Am. Compl., Am. Cable Ass’n v. Becerra, No. 2:18-CV-02684 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020). While the U.S. Department Justice also sued to block California’s net neutrality law, it dropped this case on February 8, 2021. See Pl.’s Notice of Dismissal, United States v. California, 2:No. 18-cv-02660 (Feb. 8, 2021).
166 Oral Ruling Den. Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Am. Cable Ass’n v. Becerra, No. 2:18-CV-02684 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2021). 167 ACA Connects v. Frey, No. 1:20-cv-00055 (D. Me. July 7, 2020). 168 Id. at *9. 169 Id. 170 Id. at *10. 171 Id. 172 Nixon v. Mo. Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 140 (2004) (“[T]he liberating preemption would come only by
Congressional Research Service
18
link to page 34 Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
Aside from legal challenges, Congress might weigh in on the dispute surrounding net neutrality and preemption. While no bills have yet been introduced that would expressly give the FCC authority for the broad preemption that was struck down in Mozilla, some bills from the 116th Congress would have established statutory net neutrality requirements. In particular, the Save the Internet Act—which passed the U.S. House of Representatives and was not taken up in the U.S. Senate—would have repealed the 2018 RIF Order and “restore[d]” the 2015 Open Internet Order.173 Restoring the 2015 Open Internet Order would not necessarily preempt existing state net neutrality laws, though. In that order, the FCC declined to preempt the field of net neutrality regulation, opting instead to determine whether any state laws conflict with the order’s “carefully tailored regulatory scheme” on a case-by-case basis.174 Other bills, such as H.R. 1101, H.R. 1006, H.R. 2136, and H.R. 1096 would have taken a different approach than the Save the Internet Act.175 These bills would have amended Title I to include net neutrality requirements, such as prohibitions on blocking or throttling lawful internet traffic, and given the FCC limited regulatory and enforcement authority to implement the requirements.176 While some of these bills were silent on the preemption of state law, H.R. 2136 would have expressly preempted state laws “relating to or with respect to internet openness obligations for provision of broadband internet access service.”177
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
Similar to its approach to internet access itself, the FCC has taken a hands off approach to
Broadband Regulation
For many years, the FCC's approach to broadband regulation was in flux. The FCC toggled back and forth between classifying BIAS as either (1) a "telecommunications service," subjecting providers to regulation as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act, or (2) an "information service," as defined in Title I of the Communications Act.93 The choice had significant implications for the FCC's regulatory goals.94 The FCC has only limited authority over information services, and it cannot adopt certain regulatory approaches, such as net neutrality rules, unless BIAS is classified as a Title II telecommunications service.95 Because of its limited authority over information services, the past two times the FCC has adopted net neutrality rules—in 2015 and 2024—it also reclassified BIAS as a telecommunications service.96
The FCC, however, may no longer have the ability to choose the appropriate classification for BIAS. As discussed in a CRS Legal Sidebar,97 the FCC previously exercised its discretion to make this decision based on the Chevron doctrine of agency deference,98 which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned in 2024 in the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.99 In the wake of Loper Bright, the Sixth Circuit held that BIAS must be treated as an information service under the Communications Act, and it struck down the FCC's 2024 net neutrality rules.100 As a result, unless the Supreme Court steps in to overturn the Sixth Circuit's decision, the FCC's authority over BIAS is minimal.
FCC's Authority to Preempt State Broadband Regulations
Courts have held that, as long as the FCC lacks regulatory authority over BIAS, it also lacks authority to preempt state laws regulating BIAS. In 2019, in the case Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit struck down the FCC's "sweeping" preemption of state broadband laws because, at the time, the FCC had renounced its regulatory authority over BIAS.101 In that case, the FCC had issued an order in 2018 (2018 Order) that reclassified BIAS as an information service and removed previously existing net neutrality rules.102 The FCC's order preempted "any state or local requirements" that were "inconsistent with [its] deregulatory approach."103 The D.C. Circuit, however, vacated this preemption. It reasoned that the FCC no longer had affirmative regulatory authority over BIAS, now that it was classified as an information service, and it could not preempt state law in an area over which it does not have regulatory authority without an express authorization from Congress.104
Applying the same reasoning as Mozilla, other courts have rejected preemption challenges to state broadband regulations. In ACA Connects v. Bonta,105 the Ninth Circuit upheld California's net neutrality law, the Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018, or SB-822.106 California enacted SB-822 following the FCC's 2018 Order, and "essentially codifie[d]" the 2015 net neutrality rules that the 2018 Order rescinded.107 Plaintiffs in ACA Connects argued, among other things, that the 2018 Order preempted SB-822 because SB-822 conflicted with the Order's deregulatory policy.108 The court characterized the plaintiffs' argument as "essentially contend[ing]" that SB-822 conflicts with the "absence of federal regulation."109 The court recognized that an agency's decision not to regulate may have preemptive effect in some circumstances, but such preemption occurs only when the agency has regulatory authority that it has chosen not to exercise.110 An agency may not, however, preempt state regulation when it does not have regulatory authority. The court held that, in the 2018 Order, the FCC had "surrendered its authority to regulate" net neutrality by classifying BIAS as an information service, thereby surrendering as well its power to preempt state regulations.111
Similarly, in New York State Telecommunications Ass'n v. James, the Second Circuit rejected preemption challenges to a New York law regulating broadband rates charged to low-income consumers.112 As in Mozilla and ACA Connects, the Second Circuit held that the law was not preempted by the FCC's 2018 Order.113 The court explained that since the FCC lacked authority to regulate broadband rates, having classified BIAS an information service, it also lacked the power to preempt state laws regulating broadband rates.114 The Second Circuit further dismissed the argument that the Communications Act itself preempts states from regulating broadband rates.115 Plaintiffs argued that the Communications Act preempts "the entire field of rate regulations for interstate communications services," as it gave the FCC jurisdiction over "all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio."116 The court disagreed. It explained that nothing in the text, structure, history, or case law of the Communications Act suggested that Congress intended to preempt the field of rate regulation of interstate communications services.117 The court pointed out, for example, that the Communications Act has no framework to regulate the rates of information services, let alone a pervasive one.118
Next Steps
The Sixth Circuit's conclusion that the FCC's regulatory authority over BIAS is limited means that the FCC's preemption authority over BIAS is also limited. At least in the foreseeable future, broadband regulation will likely revert to the states.119 A number of states, including California,120 Washington,121 and New York,122 have already adopted net neutrality laws through legislation or executive orders. New York, as already mentioned, has further adopted a law regulating broadband rates for low-income consumers.123 All of these state broadband laws were adopted before the FCC's 2024 net neutrality rules, when the FCC had still classified BIAS as an information service. Now that the Sixth Circuit has held that BIAS must be treated as an information service and has rejected the FCC's recent attempt to regulate it, more states may take steps to fill the regulatory gap by adopting their own broadband laws.
Congress could still intervene by amending the Communications Act to address BIAS and to preempt or preserve state broadband laws. Bills introduced in prior Congresses could provide a reference point for possible action in the 119th Congress. A number of bills introduced in the 116th Congress, such as H.R. 1006, H.R. 1101, H.R. 1096, and H.R. 2136, would have amended Title I of the Communications Act to include baseline net neutrality requirements.124 These bills would have given the FCC limited regulatory and enforcement authority over these requirements, but not the authority to treat BIAS as a telecommunications service. On the other hand, bills introduced in both the 116th and 117th Congresses would have empowered the FCC to regulate BIAS as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act. The Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act of 2022, for example, would have amended the definition of a telecommunications service to explicitly include BIAS.125 Regardless of the regulatory approach Congress might choose, it could decide to preempt state net neutrality laws or leave them intact to the extent they are consistent with federal law.
Cable Operators
The Commission has preempted state and local laws regulating cable operators in a manner it deems inconsistent with Title VI, which is the portion of the Communications Act governing the distribution of video services by cable operators.126 In particular, the Commission has (1) banned state and local governments from taking actions it deems an "unreasonable refusal" to award a cable franchise, (2) required state and local governments to count certain costs toward a statutory cap on cable franchise fees, and (3) limited state and local governments from regulating non-cable services provided by cable operators.127
Title VI
Title VI codifies a "deliberately structured dualism" in the regulation of cable.128 On the one hand, Title VI gives the FCC authority over various operational aspects of cable such as technical standards governing signal quality,129 ownership restrictions,130 and requirements for carrying local broadcast stations.131 On the other hand, it preserves state authority by requiring cable operators to obtain a "franchise" from the relevant state or local authority in the region in which it wishes to provide service.132 It further allows state and local governments to place conditions on the award of franchises, such as requiring cable operators to designate "channel capacity" for public, educational, and government (PEG) video programming.133
Title VI, nevertheless, places important limitations on state and local authority. Section 621 of the Communications Act prohibits franchising authorities (i.e., state and local governments responsible for regulating cable operators) from "unreasonably refus[ing] to award an additional competitive franchise."134 Section 622 caps the "franchise fees" charged to cable operators at 5% of the operator's gross annual revenue derived from cable services.135 Section 624 restricts franchise authorities from regulating "video programming or other information services.136
FCC Actions
In a series of orders, the FCC has interpreted Title VI's restrictions. These orders have built on one another and have responded to, and been shaped by, court decisions reviewing their legality. This subsection discusses the orders and court decisions together in chronological order.
2007: First and Second Cable Orders
The FCC issued its first order on this issue in 2007 (First Cable Order).137 In the First Cable Order, the Commission sought to remove what it viewed as "unreasonable barriers" to new entrants into the cable market. It did this largely by clarifying when practices by franchising authorities amount to an "unreasonabl[e] refus[al]" to award a franchise.138 The First Cable Order explained that such practices include, among other things, failing to make a final decision on franchise applications within timeframes specified in the order or requiring cable operators to "build out" their cable systems to provide service to certain areas or customers as a condition of granting the franchise.139
The First Order also provided guidance on which costs count toward the 5% franchise fee cap. Among other things, it explained that in-kind expenses unrelated to provision of cable service—such as requests that the cable operator provide traffic light control systems—count toward the 5% cap.140
Lastly, the FCC clarified the limits of franchising authority jurisdiction over "mixed-use" networks providing both cable and non-cable services. It maintained that, under Title VI, franchise authorities only have jurisdiction over cable services.141 Consequently, the FCC said that franchising authorities may not withhold franchises based on issues related to non-cable services or facilities (the "mixed-use" rule).142 Although state and local franchising authorities and their representative organizations challenged the legality of the First Cable Order, the Sixth Circuit denied those challenges.143 In Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, the Sixth Circuit upheld both the FCC's authority to issue rules construing Title VI and the specific rules in the First Cable Order itself.144
The First Cable Order applied only to new entrants to the cable market. The FCC shortly thereafter adopted another order (Second Cable Order) extending many of the First Cable Order's rulings to incumbent cable television service providers.145
2015–2017: Reconsideration Order and Legal Challenge
Following the release of the Second Cable Order, the Commission received three petitions for reconsideration, to which it responded with a further order in 2015 (Reconsideration Order).146 In the Reconsideration Order, the FCC affirmed the Second Cable Order's extension of the First Cable Order's rulings to incumbent cable operators.147 Most notably, the Reconsideration Order also stated that "in-kind" (i.e., noncash) payments exacted by franchising authorities, even if related to the provision of cable service, may count toward the maximum 5% franchise fee allowable under section 622.148
In 2017, in the case Montgomery County v. FCC, the Sixth Circuit vacated the FCC's determinations in the Second Cable Order and Reconsideration Order on both the issue of incumbent providers and cable-related in-kind expenses.149 Regarding incumbent providers, the court held that the FCC's extension of its mixed-use network rule to incumbent cable providers was "arbitrary and capricious" in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).150 To support its mixed-use rule, the FCC had relied on the statutory definition of "cable system," which explicitly excludes common carrier facilities except to the extent they are "used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers."151 The court explained that, unlike most new entrants, incumbent cable providers are generally not common carriers.152 Consequently, the Commission needed to identify a statutory provision that supported applying the mixed-use rule to non-common carrier entities, which it failed to do.153 The court also held that the Commission's inclusion of cable-related in-kind expenses in the 5% franchise fee cap was arbitrary and capricious.154 The court reasoned that the FCC gave "scarcely any explanation at all" for its decision to expand its interpretation of "franchise fee" to include cable-related exactions.155
2019–2021: Third Cable Order and Legal Challenge
In response to Montgomery County, the FCC adopted a new order on August 1, 2019 (Third Cable Order), which clarified its interpretations of the Cable Act.156 Among other things, the order reiterated the FCC's position that in-kind (i.e., non-monetary) expenses, even if related to cable service, may count toward the 5% franchise fee cap.157 Per the Sixth Circuit's admonition, the FCC provided additional justification for this decision, reasoning that, among other things, the statutory definition of franchise fee is broad enough to encompass such expenses and none of the specific statutory exceptions to this definition excludes them entirely.158 The Third Cable Order also reiterated the mixed-use rule's application to incumbents, relying this time on the Title VI provision prohibiting franchising authorities from "establish[ing] requirements for video programming or other information services."159
Beyond clarifying that franchising authorities cannot use their Title VI authority to regulate the non-cable aspects of a mixed-use cable system, the Third Cable Order explicitly preempted state and local laws that "impose[] fees or restrictions" on cable operators for the "provision of non-cable services in connection with access to [public] rights-of-way, except as expressly authorized in [Title VI]."160 The Commission responded specifically to an Oregon Supreme Court case, City of Eugene v. Comcast. In that case, the court upheld the City of Eugene's imposition of a 7% fee—pursuant to a city ordinance, rather than the franchising process—on the revenue a cable operator generated from its provision of broadband internet services.161 The Third Cable Order rejected City of Eugene's conclusion, however, and preempted the type of state regulation that case upheld.162 The FCC reasoned that Title VI establishes the "basic terms of a bargain" by which a cable operator may "access and operate facilities in the local rights-of-way."163 It explained that, although Congress was "well aware" that cable systems would carry non-cable services as well as cable, it nevertheless "sharply circumscribed" the authority of state and local governments to "regulate the terms of this exchange."164
Several cities, franchising authorities, and advocacy organizations filed petitions for review of the Third Cable Order in various courts of appeals.165 These petitions were consolidated and transferred to the Sixth Circuit.166 The Sixth Circuit largely upheld the Third Cable Order in City of Eugene v. FCC.167 In its decision, the Sixth Circuit determined that the FCC's inclusion of cable-related in-kind expenses in the 5% franchise fee cap was not arbitrary and capricious.168 Addressing the FCC's "mixed-use" rule, and specifically the FCC's repudiation of City of Eugene v. Comcast of Oregon, the Sixth Circuit opined that whether a franchising authority has overstepped its power depends on "whether state or local action is 'inconsistent with' a specific provision of the [Communications] Act."169 The court held that the imposition of broadband service fees on a cable operator would be inconsistent with the Title VI provision prohibiting franchising authorities from "establish[ing] requirements for video programming or other information services."170 Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit held that the FCC may preempt the City of Eugene's imposition of a broadband service fee on cable operators.171 The court rejected the FCC's proposed standard for calculating the monetary value of in-kind exactions, holding that the value of these exactions should be calculated based on a cable operator's cost, rather than their "market value."172
Community Broadband
A number of local governments throughout the United States offer consumers an option to receive broadband service from a public entity (known as "community broadband" or "municipal broadband"). Several states currently place restrictions on local government ability to provide community broadband services. The FCC has attempted to preempt state restrictions on community broadband when such restrictions are inconsistent with FCC regulations; however, a recent Sixth Circuit decision held that the FCC could not preempt state regulation of community broadband without an express statutory grant of preemption authority from Congress. Even if Congress expressly grants the FCC authority to preempt state restrictions on community broadband, such a delegation of authority is likely to face constitutional challenges. The FCC's approach to community broadband, particularly as it implicates the authority of states, involves issues under Gregory v. Ashcroft's "plain statement" rule and, in some cases, the Tenth Amendment.173
Background
Municipal broadband or community broadband refers generally to any arrangement in which a local government participates in the provision of high-speed internet service to members of its community.174 Government participation can range from public-private partnerships to broadband cooperatives or publicly owned networks. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance identifies more than 560 communities in the United States served by some form of municipal broadband.175
The FCC has historically been supportive of community broadband. In its 2010 National Broadband Plan, the Commission noted that restricting deployment of community broadband "in some cases restricts the country's ability to close the broadband availability gap."176 As early as 2000, the Commission favorably acknowledged direct public investment in broadband infrastructure by municipalities.177
FCC Action and Statutory Authority
A number of states currently restrict municipal participation in the provision of broadband service. Some states, such as Nebraska, directly prohibit local governments from participating in the provision of broadband service.178 Other states require municipalities to obtain a certain amount of local support in a referendum before offering broadband service.179 Some states, such as Utah, require municipalities to undergo a series of steps before they may provide broadband service.180
Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League
In several instances, municipalities have petitioned the FCC to preempt state laws that restrict municipal participation in broadband or telecommunications. One of the earliest of these petitions involved a Missouri law, passed in 1997, that prohibited municipalities from providing "telecommunications service."181 Municipalities petitioned the FCC to preempt this law under section 253, which, as mentioned, enables the FCC to preempt state or local requirements that "may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide" a telecommunications service.182 The FCC, however, declined to preempt the Missouri law based on its understanding that section 253's reference to "any entity" does not extend to political subdivisions of a state.183 The FCC relied on the "clear statement" rule of Gregory v. Ashcroft in reaching this conclusion, determining that an intent to apply section 253 to political subdivisions was not sufficiently clear from the statute's text to support abrogating the state's power.184 The case reached the Supreme Court, which affirmed the FCC's decision in the Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League.185 Writing for the majority, Justice Souter invoked the Court's "working assumption that federal legislation threatening to trench on the States' arrangements for conducting their own governments should be treated with great skepticism" in the absence of the plain statement required under Gregory.186 Justice Souter observed that section 253's reference to "any entity" is susceptible to multiple readings and therefore insufficiently clear.187
Tennessee v. FCC
The cities of Wilson, North Carolina and Chattanooga, Tennessee later brought petitions to preempt state laws restricting the development of municipal broadband in their respective states. Tennessee permits any municipality operating an electric plant to offer cable, video, and internet services only "within its service area."188 North Carolina similarly restricts city-owned communications providers to providing service "within the corporate limits of the city providing the communications service."189 Both Wilson and Chattanooga sought to expand coverage of their broadband networks beyond what state law would permit and asked the FCC to preempt their respective state's law to allow expansion.
The Commission granted the cities' petitions, relying on section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.190 Section 706 provides, in relevant part:
The Commission . . . shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans . . . by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.191
Though section 706 does not explicitly mention preemption of state law, the FCC interpreted "regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment" to "undoubtedly" include preemption.192 The Commission squared this interpretation with the Supreme Court's decisions in Gregory and Nixon by determining that the "clear statement" rule did not apply to issues of "federal oversight of interstate commerce," rather than direct limitations on state government.193 In the Commission's view, "the question . . . is not whether the municipal systems can provide broadband at all, but rather whether the states may dictate the manner in which interstate commerce is conducted and the nature of competition that should exist for interstate communications."194 The FCC therefore preempted the Tennessee and North Carolina laws, but emphasized that it would only preempt state laws in instances where a state chooses to permit municipalities to provide broadband and limits the municipalities' exercise of that authority.195
Following a petition for review from Tennessee and North Carolina, the Sixth Circuit overturned the Commission in Tennessee v. FCC.196 Contrary to the Commission's determinations, the court determined that the clear statement rule applied to the FCC's exercise of preemption authority under section 706. The court noted that, as in Nixon, Tennessee and North Carolina had "made discretionary determinations for their political subdivisions" by passing the laws at issue.197 The FCC's distinction between preempting state authority over political subdivisions and preempting regulation in a traditionally federal space was, the Sixth Circuit determined, a false one: the court noted that the Tennessee and North Carolina laws "implicate core attributes of state sovereignty and regulate interstate communications," rather than one or the other.198 Having determined that the clear statement rule applied, the court held that section 706 does not include a clear statement authorizing preemption of Tennessee and North Carolina's laws.199 The court maintained, however, that its holding did not address whether section 706 provides any preemptive authority at all or whether Congress could, consistent with the Constitution, provide the FCC with the power to preempt state laws regulating municipal broadband.200
Constitutional Issues
The courts in Nixon and Tennessee both relied on the "clear statement" rule to determine that Congress had not delegated to the FCC the power to preempt state restrictions on municipally owned broadband or communications networks. Consequently, neither court reached the issue of whether such a delegation would be constitutional.
The United States operates as "a system of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government."201 Within this system, states "retain substantial sovereign authority" over those aspects not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.202 Among the reserved rights under this state sovereign authority is the right to manage state government through the creation of political subdivisions.203 Relatedly, the Supreme Court has observed that a municipal government "has no privileges or immunities under the Federal Constitution which it may invoke in opposition to the will of its creator."204 Political subdivisions, in other words, are arms of a state without any sovereign authority of their own, absent a delegation of such power from a state.205
Because the Nixon and Tennessee courts determined the FCC lacked a "plain statement" of authority to preempt state restrictions on municipal broadband and telecommunications services, neither court discussed whether such a grant of authority—if made plainly—would be constitutionally permissible. Federal courts have upheld federal legislation that permits municipalities to take actions contrary to state law in other contexts.206 The Nixon court indirectly suggested that a clear statement might be sufficient to support such preemption.207 Because these constitutional issues remain unaddressed, any legislative action taken to preempt state restrictions on community broadband may be subject to constitutional scrutiny.
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
Similar to its approach to internet access itself, the FCC has taken a hands-off approach to regulating internet enabled communications—most notably VoIP, which enables users to make regulating internet enabled communications—most notably VoIP, which enables users to make
voice calls using the internet. As discussed further below, the FCC has not clearly taken a position voice calls using the internet. As discussed further below, the FCC has not clearly taken a position
on whether VoIP is a telecommunications service or an information service. on whether VoIP is a telecommunications service or an information service.
However, itThe Commission has has
nonetheless used its ancillary authority to impose some requirements on VoIP services, and it has
interposing federal authority between a State and its municipal subdivisions . . . . Hence the need to invoke our working assumption that federal legislation threatening to trench on the States’ arrangements for conducting their own governments should be treated with great skepticism, and read in a way that preserves a State’s chosen disposition of its own power, in the absence of the plain statement Gregory requires.”); see “Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League,”
infra, for more discussion.
173 H.R. 1644, 116th Cong. (2019); S. 682, 116th Cong. (2019). 174 2015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Rcd. at 19810, para. 432. 175 H.R. 1101, 116th Cong. (2019); H.R. 1006, 116th Cong. (2019); H.R. 2136, 116th Cong. (2019); H.R. 1096, 116th Cong. (2019).
176 H.R. 1101, 116th Cong. § 1 (2019) (“The Commission shall enforce the obligations established in subsection (a) through adjudication of complaints alleging violations of such subsection but may not expand the internet openness obligations for provision of broadband internet access service beyond the obligations established in such subsection, whether by rulemaking or otherwise.”); H.R. 1006, 116th Cong. § 2 (2019) (giving the Commission authority to promulgate rules implementing disclosure requirements under the bill and directing the Commission to enforce the duties under the law “through adjudication of a complaint alleging that a service violates one or more such duties” but prohibiting the FCC from imposing “regulations on broadband internet access service or any component thereof under title II”); H.R. 2136, 116th Cong. § 2 (2019) (“The Commission shall enforce [the law’s obligations] through adjudication of complaints alleging violations . . . but may not, under any provision of law, whether by rulemaking or otherwise—(A) expand the internet openness obligations for provision of broadband internet access service beyond the obligations established in [this law]; or (B) expand the internet openness obligations for the offering or provision of specialized services beyond the obligations established in [this law].”); H.R. 1096, 116th Cong. § 2 (2019) (amending Title I to include transparency requirements and prohibitions on blocking, impairment and degradation, and paid prioritization).
177 H.R. 2136, 116th Cong. § 2 (2019).
Congressional Research Service
19
link to page 23 link to page 9 Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
nonetheless used its ancillary authority to impose some requirements on VoIP services, and it has preempted state laws that would impose more regulations.preempted state laws that would impose more regulations.
178208 Courts have, thus far, upheld the Courts have, thus far, upheld the
FCC’FCC's preemption of such state laws.s preemption of such state laws.
179 209
Background
The FCC first addressed the rise of The FCC first addressed the rise of
“"IP-enabled servicesIP-enabled services
”" in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
issued on March 10, 2004.issued on March 10, 2004.
180210 In this notice, the Commission observed that services and In this notice, the Commission observed that services and
applications provided over the internet were becoming competitive with, and potentially applications provided over the internet were becoming competitive with, and potentially
replacing, services traditionally provided by incumbent telecommunications carriers.replacing, services traditionally provided by incumbent telecommunications carriers.
181211 Since Since
issuing its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission has relied on its ancillary authority issuing its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission has relied on its ancillary authority
to extend several Title II requirements to VoIP service providers when the service interfaces with to extend several Title II requirements to VoIP service providers when the service interfaces with
the Public Switched Telephone Network.182the public switched telephone network.212 Most recently, on December 13, 2019, the FCC issued Most recently, on December 13, 2019, the FCC issued
a notice seeking comment on whether truth-in-billing requirements should extend to VoIP a notice seeking comment on whether truth-in-billing requirements should extend to VoIP
providers.providers.
183213 Since issuing its first notice, the FCC has not affirmatively classified VoIP as either a Since issuing its first notice, the FCC has not affirmatively classified VoIP as either a
“"telecommunications servicetelecommunications service
”" or an or an
“"information service,information service,
”" instead relying on VoIP instead relying on VoIP
’'s interstate s interstate
nature and the Commissionnature and the Commission
’'s various statutory responsibilities to regulate VoIP through its s various statutory responsibilities to regulate VoIP through its
ancillary authority.ancillary authority.
184 214
State Action and Legal Challenges
As discussed, the Communications Act creates a model of As discussed, the Communications Act creates a model of
“"dual federalismdual federalism
”" over the nation over the nation
’s 's communications networks. To the extent the FCC relies on its ancillary authority, it may not communications networks. To the extent the FCC relies on its ancillary authority, it may not
regulate purely intrastate communications, which remain the province of the states.regulate purely intrastate communications, which remain the province of the states.
185 However, under215 Under the FCC the FCC
’s “'s "impossibility exception,impossibility exception,
”" however, the FCC may use its ancillary authority to displace the FCC may use its ancillary authority to displace
state regulation when state regulation affects both intrastate and interstate communications and state regulation when state regulation affects both intrastate and interstate communications and
distinguishing between intrastate and interstate effects is impossible or impractical.distinguishing between intrastate and interstate effects is impossible or impractical.
186
216
Some states have addressed VoIP through regulation. In 2005, Florida became the first state to Some states have addressed VoIP through regulation. In 2005, Florida became the first state to
deregulate VoIP.deregulate VoIP.
187217 In 2003, conversely, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission issued an In 2003, conversely, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission issued an
order requiring Vonage, a VoIP provider, to comply with state common carrier regulations.188
178 Vonage Holdings Corp., 19 FCC Rcd. 22404, 22411, para. 14 (2004) (relying on “impossibility” preemption to preempt a state regulatory order).
179 See Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Neb. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 564 F.3d 900, 904 (8th Cir. 2009); Charter Advanced Servs. (MN) LLC v. Lange, 903 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2018).
180 IP-Enabled Services, 19 FCC Rcd. 4863 (2004). 181 See id. at 4865–67. 182 E.g., IP-Enabled Services, E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, 20 FCC Rcd. 10245 (2005) (requiring VoIP providers to supply 911 emergency calling capabilities); Universal Service Contribution Methodology, 21 FCC Rcd. 7518 (establishing universal service contribution obligations for VoIP providers); Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 22 FCC Rcd. 6927 (2007) (extending consumer privacy requirements to VoIP providers); IP-Enabled Services, 22 FCC Rcd. 11275 (2007) (extending Telecommunications Relay Service requirements to VoIP providers).
183 Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks to Refresh the Record on Truth-In-Billing Rules To Ensure
Protections for All Consumers of Voice Services, FED. COMMC’NS COMM’N (Dec. 13, 2019), https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1213540824304/DA-19-1271A1.pdf.
184 See “State Action and Legal Challenges” infra. 185 See “The FCC’s Jurisdictional Authority” for more discussion of “impossibility” preemption. 186 Id. 187 FLA. STAT. ANN. § 364.01(3) (2011); id. § 364.011(3). 188 In re Complaint of the Minn. Dep’t of Commerce Against Vonage Holding Corp Regarding Lack of Authority to
Congressional Research Service
20
link to page 13 Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
order requiring Vonage, a VoIP provider, to comply with state common carrier regulations.218 Vonage petitioned the FCC for review of MinnesotaVonage petitioned the FCC for review of Minnesota
’'s order, and the FCC issued an order (Vonage s order, and the FCC issued an order (Vonage
Order) on November 12, 2004 concluding that Vonage was not subject to MinnesotaOrder) on November 12, 2004 concluding that Vonage was not subject to Minnesota
’'s common s common
carrier regulations.carrier regulations.
189219 The FCC reached this conclusion under its theory of The FCC reached this conclusion under its theory of
“impossibility” "impossibility" preemption, stating that intrastate communications made over VoIP were practically preemption, stating that intrastate communications made over VoIP were practically
indistinguishable from interstate communications.indistinguishable from interstate communications.
190220 The FCC further noted that state regulation The FCC further noted that state regulation
of VoIP directly conflicted with the FCCof VoIP directly conflicted with the FCC
’s “'s "pro-competitive deregulatory rules and policies.pro-competitive deregulatory rules and policies.
”191 This"221 The FCC also stated that this would be true regardless of whether VoIP were classified as an would be true regardless of whether VoIP were classified as an
“"information serviceinformation service
”" or a or a
“"telecommunications service.telecommunications service.
”192"222 Minnesota challenged the FCC Minnesota challenged the FCC
’'s order in federal court, where s order in federal court, where
the Eighth Circuit upheld the order on the grounds that the FCCthe Eighth Circuit upheld the order on the grounds that the FCC
’'s exercise of s exercise of
“impossibility” "impossibility" preemption was not arbitrary or capricious.preemption was not arbitrary or capricious.
193
223
Because the FCC has declined to classify VoIP as either a telecommunications service or an Because the FCC has declined to classify VoIP as either a telecommunications service or an
information service, and has instead relied on its ancillary authority and information service, and has instead relied on its ancillary authority and
“impossibility” "impossibility" preemption to displace state action, states have continually preemption to displace state action, states have continually
pushedexplored the boundaries of permissible the boundaries of permissible
state regulation. For example, Nebraska attempted to require VoIP providers to collect state state regulation. For example, Nebraska attempted to require VoIP providers to collect state
Universal Service Fund fees, arguing that the Vonage Order preempted only Universal Service Fund fees, arguing that the Vonage Order preempted only
“"traditional traditional
telephone companytelephone company
”" regulations. regulations.
194 However, federal courts224 Federal courts, however, routinely affirm the FCC routinely affirm the FCC
’'s power to s power to
preempt these regulations using preempt these regulations using
“impossibility” preemption.195"impossibility" preemption.225 By contrast, at least one federal By contrast, at least one federal
court has taken a different approach. In court has taken a different approach. In
Charter Advanced Services (MN) LLC v. Lange, the , the
Eighth Circuit held that VoIP is an Eighth Circuit held that VoIP is an
“"information serviceinformation service
”" under the Communications Act and is under the Communications Act and is
therefore not subject to Title II regulation.therefore not subject to Title II regulation.
196226 The court then restated an earlier conclusion of the The court then restated an earlier conclusion of the
Eighth Circuit—that Eighth Circuit—that
“"any state regulation of an information service conflicts with the federal any state regulation of an information service conflicts with the federal
policy of nonregulationpolicy of nonregulation
”"—in holding that because VoIP is an information service, no state —in holding that because VoIP is an information service, no state
regulation would stand.regulation would stand.
197
227
As discussed As discussed
supra, the, the
FCC attemptedFCC attempted
in 2018 to preempt state regulation of to preempt state regulation of
BIAS—another another
“"information information
service” in its 2018 RIF Order service"—to no avail.to no avail.
198228 The FCC The FCC
’'s bases for preemption invalidated in s bases for preemption invalidated in
Mozilla v. FCC closely track those articulated in the VoIP context: the closely track those articulated in the VoIP context: the
“"federal policy of federal policy of
deregulation for information servicesderegulation for information services
” and “impossibility” preemption.199" and "impossibility" preemption.229 When the Supreme When the Supreme
Court denied review in Court denied review in
Charter Advanced Services, Justice Clarence Thomas authored a , Justice Clarence Thomas authored a
concurrence to express his doubt that a federal policy of nonregulation could preempt state concurrence to express his doubt that a federal policy of nonregulation could preempt state
regulation.regulation.
200230 Justice Thomas explained that the constitutional source of preemption authority, the Supremacy Clause, " Justice Thomas explained that the constitutional source of preemption authority, the
Operate in Minn., No. P-6214/C-03-108, 2003 WL 22336092 (Minn. P.U.C. Sept. 11, 2003), enjoined by Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 290 F. Supp. 2d 993 (D. Minn. 2003). 189 Vonage Holdings Corp., 19 FCC Rcd. 22404 (2004). 190 See id. at 22412, para. 15. 191 Id. at 22415, para. 20. 192 Id. at 22415–17, paras. 20–22. 193 Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm’n v. FCC, 483 F.3d 570, 578–79 (8th Cir. 2007). 194 Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Neb. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 564 F.3d 900, 904 (8th Cir. 2009) (preempting state regulation).
195 See, e.g., id.; N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm’n v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 1370 (D.N.M. 2009) (dismissing declaratory judgment action by state requiring Vonage to pay into New Mexico Universal Service Fund).
196 903 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2018). 197 Id. (quoting Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 483 F.3d at 580). 198 See “Net Neutrality.” 199 Compare Mozilla v. FCC, 904 F.3d 1, 76–80 (D.C. Cir. 2019) with Charter Adv. Servs., 903 F.3d at 719; see also
Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 483 F.3d at 576. 200 Lipschultz v. Charter Adv. Servs. (MN), LLC, 140 S. Ct. 6 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring).
Congressional Research Service
21
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
Supremacy Clause, “requires that pre-emptive [sic]requires that pre-emptive [sic]
effect be given only to those federal standards effect be given only to those federal standards
and policies that are set forth in, or necessarily flow from, the statutory text that was produced and policies that are set forth in, or necessarily flow from, the statutory text that was produced
through the constitutionally required bicameral and presentment procedures.through the constitutionally required bicameral and presentment procedures.
”201"231 Consequently, Consequently,
allowing an agency policy of nonregulation to have preemptive effect allowing an agency policy of nonregulation to have preemptive effect
“"authorizes the Executive authorizes the Executive
to make to make
‘Law’'Law' by declining to act, and it authorizes the courts to conduct by declining to act, and it authorizes the courts to conduct
‘'a freewheeling judicial a freewheeling judicial
inquiry’inquiry' into the facts of federal nonregulation. into the facts of federal nonregulation.
”202
However, "232
VoIP differs from BIASVoIP differs from BIAS
, however, in that VoIP services frequently use telephone numbers and in that VoIP services frequently use telephone numbers and
connect users to traditional telecommunications networks. On this basis, the FCC has relied on its connect users to traditional telecommunications networks. On this basis, the FCC has relied on its
ancillary authority to affirmatively regulate VoIP providers, in contrast to its approach to BIAS.ancillary authority to affirmatively regulate VoIP providers, in contrast to its approach to BIAS.
203 233 Whereas the Whereas the
Mozilla court did not find BIAS to fall under any FCC jurisdictional authority absent court did not find BIAS to fall under any FCC jurisdictional authority absent
a classification as a Title II a classification as a Title II
“"telecommunications service,telecommunications service,
”" the FCC has repeatedly relied on its the FCC has repeatedly relied on its
ancillary jurisdiction to regulate VoIP without facing legal challenges for doing so.ancillary jurisdiction to regulate VoIP without facing legal challenges for doing so.
204 234
Wireless Facility Siting for Fifth Generation (5G) Networks
Preemption
Lastly, preemption has also played a leading part in the FCC has also played a leading part in the FCC
’s 's stated efforts to speed the deployment of efforts to speed the deployment of
fifth generation (5G)5G wireless infrastructure. The infrastructure necessary to support 5G wireless wireless infrastructure. The infrastructure necessary to support 5G wireless
networks involvesnetworks involves
, in part, the placement of the placement of
“"small cellsmall cell
”" wireless equipment on wireless equipment on
new monopoles or existing structures, existing structures,
including municipally owned property. In 2018, the FCC acted to preempt state and local including municipally owned property. In 2018, the FCC acted to preempt state and local
authority to regulateregulations regarding the placement of small cells when such regulations the placement of small cells when such regulations
“"materially inhibitmaterially inhibit
”" the the
deployment of 5G infrastructure. The Commission also set deployment of 5G infrastructure. The Commission also set
“"shot clocksshot clocks
”" that control the that control the
timeframe in which local governments must review applications for small cell siting. timeframe in which local governments must review applications for small cell siting.
In 2020, the In 2020, the
FCC clarified its rules requiring state and local governments to approve requests to modify FCC clarified its rules requiring state and local governments to approve requests to modify
existing wireless facilities when the modification existing wireless facilities when the modification
“"does not substantially change the physical does not substantially change the physical
dimensions” of the facility. These regulatory actions have been challenged in federal courts by municipalities and public utilities, and while the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the FCC’s 2018 actions, litigation concerning the 2020 action is still ongoing, with proceedings stayed until November 2021.205
Technical Background
dimensions" of the facility. The Ninth Circuit has largely (but not entirely) upheld these actions, as discussed further below.
Technical Background
Mobile wireless services function by transmitting information between devices over radio waves Mobile wireless services function by transmitting information between devices over radio waves
through a network of antennae and similar equipment. Each node in these networks is a through a network of antennae and similar equipment. Each node in these networks is a
cell site: a : a
collection of communications equipment capable of receiving and transmitting wireless signals collection of communications equipment capable of receiving and transmitting wireless signals
over a given area (a over a given area (a
cell).).
In legacy networks (e.g., 3G, 4G), telecommunication providers use macro cell sites (e.g., tall In legacy networks (e.g., 3G, 4G), telecommunication providers use macro cell sites (e.g., tall
towers, antennas, radio equipment) to provide coverage over wide areas. 5G networks leverage
201 Id. at 7 (quoting Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 586 (2009) (Thomas, J., concurring). 202 Id. at 7–8 (quoting Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 588 (Thomas, J., concurring). Justice Thomas nonetheless concurred in the denial of certiorari because the petition did not raise the basis of preemption. Id.
203 See, e.g., 47 CFR § 9.11 (requiring interconnected VoIP service providers to provide 911 service); 47 CFR § 54.706 (requiring interconnected VoIP providers to contribute to federal universal service support mechanisms); 47 CFR § 64.604 (requiring VoIP contributions to Telecommunications Relay Service fund).
204 E.g., IP-Enabled Services E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, 20 FCC Rcd. 10245, 10261–66, paras. 26-35 (2005).
205 See City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020) (upholding all of the FCC’s requirements except for its aesthetic requirements); Order, League of Cal. Cities v. FCC, No. 20-71765 (9th Cir. July 28, 2021), ECF No. 63 (granting FCC’s motion to stay the proceedings).
Congressional Research Service
22
link to page 9 Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
towers, antennas, radio equipment) to provide coverage over wide areas. 5G networks leverage 4G macro cell sites but also rely on 4G macro cell sites but also rely on
“"small cellssmall cells
”" with coverage areas of hundreds of feet. with coverage areas of hundreds of feet.
206 235 Because the coverage area is small, an effective 5G network requires placement of a large number Because the coverage area is small, an effective 5G network requires placement of a large number
of cell sites in close proximity to each other. These small cell sites are much smaller than those of cell sites in close proximity to each other. These small cell sites are much smaller than those
that support extant wireless networks and may therefore be attached to that support extant wireless networks and may therefore be attached to
monopole masts or existing structures, rather existing structures, rather
than requiring construction of freestanding macro cell towers.than requiring construction of freestanding macro cell towers.
207 236
State and Local Authority
Constructing wireless facilities or attaching wireless equipment to existing structures generally Constructing wireless facilities or attaching wireless equipment to existing structures generally
requires some sort of government approval depending on who controls the site of construction. requires some sort of government approval depending on who controls the site of construction.
With the exception of federal lands, state or local authorities manage construction projects. For With the exception of federal lands, state or local authorities manage construction projects. For
cell site projects, typical state and local concerns include historical preservation, environmental cell site projects, typical state and local concerns include historical preservation, environmental
protection, public safety, accessibility requirements, and aesthetics.protection, public safety, accessibility requirements, and aesthetics.
208 237
To date, a number of states have passed or proposed legislation to speed up the permitting process To date, a number of states have passed or proposed legislation to speed up the permitting process
for small cell deployment.for small cell deployment.
209238 These laws generally address this objective by placing time limits These laws generally address this objective by placing time limits
(or (or
“"shot clocksshot clocks
”") on application processing and limiting or capping fees charged by local ) on application processing and limiting or capping fees charged by local
authorities for small cell site applications.authorities for small cell site applications.
210
FCC Statutory Authority and Procedure
Two provisions of the Communications Act—Sections 253 and 332239 On the other hand, other states and localities have sought to halt or slow 5G deployment, citing health, environmental, or aesthetic concerns.240 Some localities have further criticized the FCC's actions preempting state and local authority over the deployment of wireless infrastructure.241
FCC Statutory Authority and Procedure
Two provisions of the Communications Act—sections 253 and 332(c)(7)—address how FCC authority —address how FCC authority
over interstate communications intersects with local land use authority. First, over interstate communications intersects with local land use authority. First,
Sectionsection 253 permits 253 permits
the FCC to preempt enforcement of any act of state or local government that the FCC to preempt enforcement of any act of state or local government that
“"prohibit[s] or ha[s] prohibit[s] or ha[s]
the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate
telecommunications service.telecommunications service.
”211"242 It contains two exceptions, however. First, It contains two exceptions, however. First,
Sectionsection 253(b) 253(b)
provides that:provides that:
[n]othing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a
[n]othing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively competitively
neutral basis . . . requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect neutral basis . . . requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect
the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services,
and safeguard the rights of consumers.and safeguard the rights of consumers.
212
243
Further, Further,
Sectionsection 253(c) reserves to state and local governments 253(c) reserves to state and local governments
“"the authority . . . to manage the authority . . . to manage
public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications
providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basisproviders, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis
”" for use of such rights of for use of such rights of
way.213
206 For further technical background, see CRS Report R45485, Fifth-Generation (5G) Telecommunications
Technologies: Issues for Congress, by Jill C. Gallagher and Michael E. DeVine.
207 Small Cell Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088, 9089 para. 3 (2018); see also 47 CFR § 1.6002(l) (defining “small wireless facilities”). 208 See generally Municipal Action Guide: Small Cell Wireless Technology in Cities at 5, NAT’L LEAGUE OF CITIES (2018) (outlining potential issues faced by municipalities in managing small cell sites), https://www.nlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/CS_SmallCell_MAG_FINAL.pdf.
209 See Michael T.N. Fitch, Legislation Streamlining Wireless Small Cell Deployment Enacted in 25 States, NAT’L L. REV. (July 8, 2019), https://www.natlawreview.com/article/legislation-streamlining-wireless-small-cell-deployment-enacted-25-states.
210 E.g. COLO. REV. STAT. §§ 29-27-403, 38-5.5-108 (2020); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 17 §§ 1605, 1609 (1974). 211 47 U.S.C. § 253(a), (d); see “Overview of the FCC’s Preemption Authority Under the Communications Act.” 212 Id. § 253(b). 213 Id. § 253(c).
Congressional Research Service
23
link to page 9 Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
Similar to Section 253, Section 332way.244
Similar to section 253, section 332(c)(7) prohibits state and local governments from using local zoning prohibits state and local governments from using local zoning
authority in a manner that authority in a manner that
“"prohibit[s] or ha[s] the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless prohibit[s] or ha[s] the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless
services.services.
”214"245 It further prohibits state and local governments from It further prohibits state and local governments from
“"unreasonably discriminat[ing] unreasonably discriminat[ing]
among providers of functionally equivalent services,among providers of functionally equivalent services,
”" and it requires them to and it requires them to
“"act on any request act on any request
for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a
reasonable period of time.reasonable period of time.
”215 Apart from these requirements and a few specific limitations,216 Section 332"246 It also prohibits them from unreasonably discriminating against providers of functionally equivalent services and from regulating the placement, construction, and modification of wireless service facilities based on the environmental effects of radio emissions.247 Apart from these requirements, section 332(c)(7) preserves state and local authority over decisions regarding the preserves state and local authority over decisions regarding the
“"placement, placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.
”217
"248
Both of these statutes provide mechanisms through which a party subject to a state or local Both of these statutes provide mechanisms through which a party subject to a state or local
requirementregulation (e.g., a wireless service provider) may challenge the requirement. Section 253 permits parties to file a petition with the may challenge the requirement. Section 253 permits parties to file a petition with the
FCC to preempt enforcement of a FCC to preempt enforcement of a
state or local requirement that requirement that
allegedly violates the section.violates the section.
218249 Section 332 allows Section 332 allows
such a party to bring an action in federal courtsuch a party to bring an action in federal court
.219
In addition to these statutory provisions, Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012220 requires that state and local governments approve any request to modify an existing wireless facility “that does not substantially change the physical dimensions” of the facility.221 seeking preemption of a state or local regulation.250
Section 332(c)(7) does not, however, expressly empower the FCC to preempt state and local requirements that conflict with section 332(c)(7)'s limitations (except for the limitation on regulating based on environmental effects).251 In the past, courts have rejected arguments that the FCC lacks the authority to adopt rules implementing section 332(c)(7)'s limitations. These court decisions, however, held that section 332(c)(7) was ambiguous and applied the now-defunct Chevron doctrine to defer to the FCC's assertion of implementing authority.252 Because Chevron has since been overruled,253 the FCC's implementing authority over section 332(c)(7) might be challenged, should the agency adopt new rules implementing this provision.
In addition to these statutory provisions, section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012254 requires that state and local governments approve any request to modify an existing wireless facility "that does not substantially change the physical dimensions" of the facility.255 While this provision While this provision
does not direct the FCC to preempt state action or provide a mechanism for parties to challenge does not direct the FCC to preempt state action or provide a mechanism for parties to challenge
state action, as state action, as
Sectionssections 253 and 332 do, 253 and 332 do,
Sectionsection 6409(a) is enforced by the Commission and 6409(a) is enforced by the Commission and
therefore the Commission may promulgate regulations implementing it.therefore the Commission may promulgate regulations implementing it.
222 256
The FCC’'s Orders
In 2018, the FCC issued two orders addressing state and local authority over small cell siting. The In 2018, the FCC issued two orders addressing state and local authority over small cell siting. The
first of these orders prohibits localities from instituting moratoria on processing applications first of these orders prohibits localities from instituting moratoria on processing applications
relating to telecommunications infrastructure deployment, including cell sites (Moratorium relating to telecommunications infrastructure deployment, including cell sites (Moratorium
Order).Order).
223257 The second order The second order
clarifiesstates the FCC the FCC
’'s position that a state or local requirement s position that a state or local requirement
“"effectively prohibitseffectively prohibits
”" the provision of services articulated in the provision of services articulated in
Sectionssections 253 and 332 when such 253 and 332 when such
requirement requirement
“"materially inhibitsmaterially inhibits
”" the deployment of telecommunications facilities (Small Cell the deployment of telecommunications facilities (Small Cell
Order).Order).
224258 In 2020, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling clarifying its rules implementing In 2020, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling clarifying its rules implementing
Section section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act (June 2020 Declaratory Ruling).6409(a) of the Spectrum Act (June 2020 Declaratory Ruling).
225259 Recognizing that 5G deployment Recognizing that 5G deployment
214 Id. § 332(c)(7)(B); see “Overview of the FCC’s Preemption Authority Under the Communications Act.” 215 Id. §§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). 216 Section 332 also prohibits state and local governments from “unreasonably discriminat[ing] among providers of functionally equivalent services.” Id. § 332(c)(7)(B). State and local governments are also prohibited from regulating
“the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.” Id. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
217 Id. § 332(c)(7)(A). 218 Id. § 253(d); see also 47 CFR § 1.1. 219 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). 220 Pub. L. No. 112-96, title VI, 126 Stat. 156, 232 (codified as 47 U.S.C. § 1455). 221 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a). 222 See 47 U.S.C. § 1403(a) (directing the FCC to implement and enforce the Spectrum Act “as if [it] is a part of the Communications Act of 1934”). 223 Moratorium Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 7705 (2018). 224 Small Cell Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088 (2018). 225 Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests, 35 FCC Rcd. 5977 (2020) [hereinafter June 2020 Declaratory Ruling]; see also Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Siting Policies, 30 FCC Rcd. 31, 43, paras. 135–241 (2014) [hereinafter 2014
Congressional Research Service
24
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
will not depend solely on small cells, the June 2020 Declaratory Ruling addresses FCC will not depend solely on small cells, the June 2020 Declaratory Ruling addresses FCC
regulations governing state and local approval of modifications to existing wireless equipment.regulations governing state and local approval of modifications to existing wireless equipment.
226 260
The Moratorium Order
The FCC The FCC
made clearstated in the Moratorium Order that in the Moratorium Order that
“"explicit refusals to authorize deployment and explicit refusals to authorize deployment and
dilatory tactics that amount to dilatory tactics that amount to
de facto refusals to allow deploymentrefusals to allow deployment
”" of telecommunications of telecommunications
facilities violate facilities violate
Section 253.227section 253.261 The Commission focused both on The Commission focused both on
“"express moratoriaexpress moratoria
”"—written —written
legal requirements that prevent or suspend the processing of permits and applications necessary legal requirements that prevent or suspend the processing of permits and applications necessary
for deploying wireless facilities—and for deploying wireless facilities—and
“"de facto moratoriade facto moratoria
”" that effectively prevent or suspend that effectively prevent or suspend
such processing but are not codified.such processing but are not codified.
228262 Both express and de facto moratoria, the FCC Both express and de facto moratoria, the FCC
observed, found, inherently violate inherently violate
Sectionsection 253 because such moratoria 253 because such moratoria
“"prohibit or have the effect of prohibitingprohibit or have the effect of prohibiting
” " deployment of facilities necessary to provide telecommunications service.deployment of facilities necessary to provide telecommunications service.
229263 The Commission The Commission
rejected the argument that such moratoria do not violate Section 253 because they are time-rejected the argument that such moratoria do not violate Section 253 because they are time-
limited, noting that some localities impose limited, noting that some localities impose
“temporary”"temporary" moratoria without definite end dates or moratoria without definite end dates or
continually extend such moratoria.continually extend such moratoria.
230
264
The FCC also determined that the exceptions in The FCC also determined that the exceptions in
Sectionsection 253(b) and 253(b) and
Sectionsection 253(c) do not 253(c) do not
ordinarily apply to express and de facto moratoria. As mentioned, ordinarily apply to express and de facto moratoria. As mentioned,
Sectionsection 253(b) reserves 253(b) reserves
“"the the
ability of a Stateability of a State
”" to impose requirements on a to impose requirements on a
“"competitively neutral basiscompetitively neutral basis
”" that are necessary to that are necessary to
“"preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the
continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.
”231"265 The The
Commission reasoned that this exception generally would not apply because it discusses only the Commission reasoned that this exception generally would not apply because it discusses only the
authority of a state, and the absence of any indication that the exception applies to local authority of a state, and the absence of any indication that the exception applies to local
government would preclude its application to municipal moratoria.government would preclude its application to municipal moratoria.
232266 Further, the FCC Further, the FCC
notedfound that that
even if local moratoria fell within even if local moratoria fell within
Sectionsection 253(b) 253(b)
’'s jurisdictional scope, most moratoria would not s jurisdictional scope, most moratoria would not
meet the exceptionmeet the exception
’'s substantive requirements, such as being s substantive requirements, such as being
“"competitively neutralcompetitively neutral
”" or being or being
necessary for any of the four necessary for any of the four
“"public interestpublic interest
”" purposes listed in the subsection. purposes listed in the subsection.
233267 The The
Commission acknowledged, however, that in Commission acknowledged, however, that in
“"limited situationslimited situations
”" a moratoria may be necessary to a moratoria may be necessary to
“"protect the public safety and welfare,protect the public safety and welfare,
”" such as in the instance of a natural disaster that results in such as in the instance of a natural disaster that results in
a widespread power or telecommunications outage.a widespread power or telecommunications outage.
234
268
The Commission likewise concluded that The Commission likewise concluded that
Sectionsection 253(c) does not apply. As mentioned, 253(c) does not apply. As mentioned,
Section section 253(c) reserves to state and local governments 253(c) reserves to state and local governments
“"the authority . . . to manage public rights-of-way the authority . . . to manage public rights-of-way
or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a
Infrastructure Order] (promulgating regulations under Section 6409(a)).
226 June 2020 Declaratory Ruling, 35 FCC Rcd. at 5978–79, para. 2. 227 Moratorium Order, 33 FCC Rcd. at 7775, para. 140. Because the Moratorium Order relies on Section 253, it applies to all facilities used in the provision of telecommunications service, not just wireless facilities. Compare 47 U.S.C. § 253(a) (applying to any legal requirement that affects “any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service) with
47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) (singling out “personal wireless service facilities”). 228 Id. at 7777, 7780, paras. 145, 149. 229 Id. at 7779, 7782, paras. 147, 151. 230 Id. at 7779–80, para. 148. 231 47 U.S.C. § 253(b). 232 Moratorium Order, 33 FCC Rcd. at 7782–83, para. 154. 233 Id. at 7783-84, para. 155–56. 234 Id. at 7784-85, para. 157.
Congressional Research Service
25
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basiscompetitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis
”," for use of such rights of way. for use of such rights of way.
235269 Per the Per the
Moratorium Order, Moratorium Order,
Sectionsection 253(c) 253(c)
’'s applicability to a moratorium depends on whether moratoria s applicability to a moratorium depends on whether moratoria
may constitute management of public rights-of-way.may constitute management of public rights-of-way.
236270 Although Although
Sectionsection 253 does not define 253 does not define
management of public rights-of-way, past FCC precedent specifies management of public rights-of-way, past FCC precedent specifies
“"coordination of construction coordination of construction
schedules, determination of insurance, bonding and indemnity requirements, establishment and schedules, determination of insurance, bonding and indemnity requirements, establishment and
enforcement of building codes, and keeping track of the various systems using the rights-of-way enforcement of building codes, and keeping track of the various systems using the rights-of-way
to prevent interference between themto prevent interference between them
”" as examples of public rights-of-way management. as examples of public rights-of-way management.
237271 From From
this precedent, the Commission concluded that this precedent, the Commission concluded that
Sectionsection 253(c) applies to 253(c) applies to
“"certain activities that certain activities that
involve the actual use of the right-of-way,involve the actual use of the right-of-way,
”" rather than activities that preclude access to the right- rather than activities that preclude access to the right-
of-way at all.of-way at all.
238272 Thus, the FCC held that Thus, the FCC held that
Sectionsection 253(c) did not apply to moratoria. 253(c) did not apply to moratoria.
The Small Cell Order
In comparison to the relatively narrow issue addressed in the Moratorium Order, the Small Cell In comparison to the relatively narrow issue addressed in the Moratorium Order, the Small Cell
Order deals with a wide range of topics relating to state and local government authority to slow Order deals with a wide range of topics relating to state and local government authority to slow
the deployment of small wireless facilities. Most notably, the Small Cell Order addresses (1) the deployment of small wireless facilities. Most notably, the Small Cell Order addresses (1)
when state or local actions when state or local actions
“"prohibit or effectively prohibitprohibit or effectively prohibit
”" the provision of wireless service, and the provision of wireless service, and
(2) the timeframes within which state and local governments must act on small cell applications.(2) the timeframes within which state and local governments must act on small cell applications.
With respect to the first issue, and in contrast to the Moratorium Order, the FCC based the Small With respect to the first issue, and in contrast to the Moratorium Order, the FCC based the Small
Cell Order on Cell Order on
Sectionssections 253 253
and 332—both of which include the same 332—both of which include the same
“"prohibit or effectively prohibit or effectively
prohibit”prohibit" language. The Small Cell Order applied the language. The Small Cell Order applied the
“"prohibit or effectively prohibitsprohibit or effectively prohibits
”" language language
to reach three rulings.to reach three rulings.
The appropriate standard for determining whether state or local conduct The appropriate standard for determining whether state or local conduct
“"prohibit[s] or effectively prohibit[s]prohibit[s] or effectively prohibit[s]
”" the provision of service under the provision of service under
Sections sections 253 or 332 is whether the conduct 253 or 332 is whether the conduct
“"materially limits or inhibits the ability of any materially limits or inhibits the ability of any
competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and
regulatory environment.regulatory environment.
”239
"273
State and local fees associated with the deployment of wireless infrastructure State and local fees associated with the deployment of wireless infrastructure
only comply with this only comply with this
“"materially limits or inhibitsmaterially limits or inhibits
”" standard if they are non- standard if they are non-
discriminatory and reasonably approximate the state or localitydiscriminatory and reasonably approximate the state or locality
’'s reasonable s reasonable
costs.costs.
240
274
Aesthetic requirements only comply with the Aesthetic requirements only comply with the
“"materially limits or inhibitsmaterially limits or inhibits
”
" standard if they are reasonable, non-discriminatory, standard if they are reasonable, non-discriminatory,
“"objective and published in objective and published in
advance.advance.
”241
"275With respect to the appropriate standard, the FCC relied on FCC precedent that first articulated With respect to the appropriate standard, the FCC relied on FCC precedent that first articulated
the the
“"materially inhibitmaterially inhibit
”" standard. standard.
242276 The Commission further adopted the interpretations of the First, Second, and Tenth Circuits, which held that a legal requirement can meet the " The Commission further adopted the interpretations of the
235 47 U.S.C. § 253(c). 236 Moratorium Order, 33 FCC Rcd. at 7786, para. 159. 237 Id. at para. 160 (quoting TCI Cablevision of Oakland Cty., 12 FCC Rcd. 21396, 21441, para. 103 (1997)). 238 Id. at 7786–87, para. 160. 239 Small Cell Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088, 9102, para. 35 (2018) (quoting California Payphone Ass’n, Petition for Preemption of Ordinance No. 576 NS of the City of Huntington Park, Cal., 12 FCC Rcd. 14191, 14206, para. 31 (1997) [hereinafter California Payphone]).
240 Id. at 9112-13, para. 50. 241 Id. at 9132, para. 86. 242 Id. at 9102, para. 35 (citing California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd. at 14206, para. 31).
Congressional Research Service
26
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
First, Second, and Tenth Circuits, which held that a legal requirement can meet the “materially inhibit”materially inhibit" standard even if it does not present an standard even if it does not present an
“"insurmountable barrierinsurmountable barrier
”" to the entry or provision to the entry or provision
of wireless services.of wireless services.
243277 The FCC The FCC
clarifieddetermined that wireless service is that wireless service is
“"materially inhibitedmaterially inhibited
”" not only not only
when legal requirements materially inhibit the introduction of wireless service, but also when when legal requirements materially inhibit the introduction of wireless service, but also when
legal requirements materially inhibit improvement of existing services, such as by densifying an legal requirements materially inhibit improvement of existing services, such as by densifying an
existing network.existing network.
244
278
Regarding fees, the Commission concluded that fees Regarding fees, the Commission concluded that fees
“"materially inhibitmaterially inhibit
”" the provision of wireless the provision of wireless
service unless they reasonably approximate the state or local governmentservice unless they reasonably approximate the state or local government
’'s costs, take into s costs, take into
account only account only
“"objectively reasonable costs,objectively reasonable costs,
”" and are and are
“"no higher than the fees charged to similarly-no higher than the fees charged to similarly-
situated competitors in similar situations.situated competitors in similar situations.
”245"279 The FCC relied in part on the text of The FCC relied in part on the text of
Sectionsection 253(c), 253(c),
which permits state and local governments to collect which permits state and local governments to collect
“"fair and reasonable compensation from fair and reasonable compensation from
telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral basis, for use of public rights-of-way telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral basis, for use of public rights-of-way
on a nondiscriminatory basis.on a nondiscriminatory basis.
”246"280 The FCC did not decide whether The FCC did not decide whether
Sectionsection 253(a) preempts all 253(a) preempts all
fees not expressly reserved by fees not expressly reserved by
Sectionsection 253(c), but concluded that 253(c), but concluded that
, in the context of small wireless in the context of small wireless
facilities, otherwise facilities, otherwise
“small”"small" fees may materially inhibit facility deployment when considered in fees may materially inhibit facility deployment when considered in
the aggregate, given the expected volume of small wireless facilities.the aggregate, given the expected volume of small wireless facilities.
247281 The Commission also The Commission also
identified a identified a
“"safe harborsafe harbor
”" of presumptively valid fees, including a $500 of presumptively valid fees, including a $500
“upfront”"upfront" application fee application fee
for up to five small wireless facilities or a $1,000 non-recurring fee for a new utility pole, and for up to five small wireless facilities or a $1,000 non-recurring fee for a new utility pole, and
$270 per small wireless facility per year for all recurring fees.$270 per small wireless facility per year for all recurring fees.
248
282
Addressing aesthetic requirements, the FCC noted that such requirements impose additional Addressing aesthetic requirements, the FCC noted that such requirements impose additional
cost costs on wireless providers and therefore may materially inhibit the provision of wireless service in on wireless providers and therefore may materially inhibit the provision of wireless service in
violation of violation of
Sectionssections 253 and 332. 253 and 332.
249283 The FCC concluded that the harms aesthetic requirements The FCC concluded that the harms aesthetic requirements
are meant to address are analogous to the are meant to address are analogous to the
“costs”"costs" borne by state and local governments and borne by state and local governments and
therefore aesthetic requirements that are reasonably directed at resolving these harms would be therefore aesthetic requirements that are reasonably directed at resolving these harms would be
permissible.permissible.
250 To demonstrate this284 To meet this standard, the aesthetic requirements , the aesthetic requirements
(1) must be reasonable, (2) must not burden small wireless must not burden small wireless
facilities more than similar infrastructure deployments, facilities more than similar infrastructure deployments,
and they must “(3) must be objective (i.e., "incorporate clearly-incorporate clearly-
defined and ascertainable standards, applied in a principled mannerdefined and ascertainable standards, applied in a principled manner
.”251
"), and (4) must be published in advance.285
Lastly, in addition to clarifying when state or local actions Lastly, in addition to clarifying when state or local actions
“"prohibit or effectively prohibitprohibit or effectively prohibit
” " wireless service under wireless service under
Sectionssections 253 and 332, the Small Cell Order separately set forth 253 and 332, the Small Cell Order separately set forth
“"shot clocks"shot clocks” governing review of applications for wireless facilities. The Commission set a time limit governing review of applications for wireless facilities. The Commission set a time limit
of 60of sixty days for attachment of a small wireless facility to an existing structure and days for attachment of a small wireless facility to an existing structure and
90ninety days for a days for a
new structure.new structure.
252286 For authority, the FCC relied on For authority, the FCC relied on
Sectionsection 332(c)(7) 332(c)(7)
’'s requirement that localities s requirement that localities
“"act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service
facilities within a reasonable time,facilities within a reasonable time,
”" as well as on that section as well as on that section
’s “'s "prohibit or effectively prohibit" language.287prohibit or effectively prohibit”
243 Id.; see, e.g., TCG N.Y., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 305 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2002); P.R. Telephone Co. v. Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 2006); RT Commc’ns v. FCC, 201 F.3d 1264, 1268 (10th Cir. 2000).
244 Small Cell Order, 33 FCC Rcd. at 9104, para. 37. 245 Id. at 9112–13, para. 50. 246 Id. at 9113–14, para. 52 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 253(c)). 247 Id. at 9114, para. 53. 248 Id. at 9129, para. 79. 249 Id. at 9132, para. 87. 250 Id. 251 Id. at 9132, paras. 87–88. 252 Id. at 9092, para. 13.
Congressional Research Service
27
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
language.253 The Small Cell Order explains that in situations where a jurisdiction misses the shot The Small Cell Order explains that in situations where a jurisdiction misses the shot
clock deadline, the applicant should, in most cases, be able to obtain expedited relief in court clock deadline, the applicant should, in most cases, be able to obtain expedited relief in court
under under
Sectionsection 332(c)(7), which directs courts to decide suits brought by any adversely affected 332(c)(7), which directs courts to decide suits brought by any adversely affected
person on an person on an
“"expedited basis.expedited basis.
”254"288 According to the Order, in such cases, applicants should have a According to the Order, in such cases, applicants should have a
relatively low hurdle to clear in establishing a right to expedited judicial relief,relatively low hurdle to clear in establishing a right to expedited judicial relief,
”" since missing the since missing the
shot clock would amount to a presumptive violation of shot clock would amount to a presumptive violation of
Sectionsection 332(c)(7). 332(c)(7).
255 289
The June 2020 Declaratory Ruling
In 2014, the Commission issued rules implementing In 2014, the Commission issued rules implementing
Sectionsection 6409(a) ( 6409(a) (
“2014 Infrastructure Order”), including specifying what qualifies as “substantially chang[ing] the physical dimensions” of a wireless facility and setting a 60-day shot clock for facility modifications.256 2014 Infrastructure Order).290 Under section 6409(a), state and local governments must approve any request to modify an existing wireless facility "that does not substantially change the physical dimensions" of the facility.291 The FCC's 2014 rules specify that a modification to a wireless facility "substantially change[s] the physical dimensions" of the facility if it would "defeat" the "concealment elements" of the facility or, in the case of wireless towers, increase the height of the tower by a certain amount.292 The rules also set a sixty-day shot clock for facility modifications.293 After a coalition of municipalities challenged this order in court, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the After a coalition of municipalities challenged this order in court, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the
2014 Infrastructure Order, holding that the Commission had statutory authority to make its rules 2014 Infrastructure Order, holding that the Commission had statutory authority to make its rules
and had not defined any terms in and had not defined any terms in
Sectionsection 6409(a) unreasonably. 6409(a) unreasonably.
257
294
The June 2020 Declaratory Ruling The June 2020 Declaratory Ruling
clarifiessought to clarify the rules implemented by the Commission in the 2014 the rules implemented by the Commission in the 2014
Infrastructure Order. Recognizing that localities had inconsistently applied the 2014 Infrastructure Infrastructure Order. Recognizing that localities had inconsistently applied the 2014 Infrastructure
Order’s 60Order's sixty-day shot clock, the FCC -day shot clock, the FCC
clarifiedstated that the shot clock begins when (1) the party that the shot clock begins when (1) the party
applying for the modification applying for the modification
“"takes the first procedural steptakes the first procedural step
”" required by the local jurisdiction required by the local jurisdiction
’s 's review process, and (2) the applicant demonstrates in writing that the proposed modification is review process, and (2) the applicant demonstrates in writing that the proposed modification is
covered by covered by
Sectionsection 6409(a). 6409(a).
258295 In addition to addressing the shot clock, the June 2020 Declaratory In addition to addressing the shot clock, the June 2020 Declaratory
Ruling further elaborates what qualifies as Ruling further elaborates what qualifies as
“"substantially chang[ing] the physical dimensionssubstantially chang[ing] the physical dimensions
”" of of
a wireless facility, addressing several definitional ambiguities found in the regulations issued a wireless facility, addressing several definitional ambiguities found in the regulations issued
under the 2014 Infrastructure Order.259
Legal Challenges
A number of parties, including state and local governments, utilities, telecommunications providers, and interest groups have petitioned federal courts for review of the FCC’s orders. While the Ninth Circuit recently upheld the bulk of the Small Cell and Moratorium Orders—vacating only the Small Cell Order’s aesthetic requirements—the litigation surrounding the June 2020 Declaratory Ruling is ongoing.260
In the challenges to the Small Cell and Moratorium Orders, state and local governments challenged the FCC’s action under a number of theories, including a number of evergreen administrative law doctrines such as the “arbitrary and capricious” standard and Chevron deference framework.261 The local governments argued that the FCC’s orders go beyond what 253 Id. at 9148–49, paras. 117–118. 254 Id. at 9149, para. 120. 255 Id. 256 2014 Infrastructure Order, 30 FCC Rcd. 31, 43, paras. 135–241 (2014). 257 Montgomery Cty. v. FCC, 811 F.3d 121 (4th Cir. 2015). 258 June 2020 Declaratory Ruling, 35 FCC Rcd. at 5986, para. 16. 259 Id. at 5989–99, paras. 24–44; see 47 CFR 1.6100(b)(7) (defining “substantial change” for purposes of Section 6409(a)).
260 City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020) (upholding all of the FCC’s requirements except for its aesthetic requirements); Order, League of Cal. Cities v. FCC, No. 20-71765 (9th Cir. July 28, 2021), ECF No. 63 (granting FCC’s motion to stay the proceedings). 261 See Brief for Petitioners, City of Portland v. United States, No. 18-72689 (9th Cir. June 10, 2019), ECF No. 62.
Congressional Research Service
28
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
Sections 253 and 332 permit and do not articulate administrable standards.262under the 2014 Infrastructure Order.296 The Declaratory Ruling specified, for example, when a modification defeats a wireless facility's concealment elements. The Declaratory Ruling explained that a "concealment element" makes the wireless facility look like something else (e.g., a "pine tree, flag pole, or chimney") but does not include any design to make the wireless facility less noticeable (e.g., setting it back on a roof so that it cannot be seen).297
Legal Challenges
A number of parties, including state and local governments, utilities, telecommunications providers, and interest groups have petitioned federal courts for review of the FCC's orders. In 2020, the Ninth Circuit upheld the bulk of the Small Cell and Moratorium Orders—vacating only the Small Cell Order's aesthetic requirements.298 In 2024, the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the June 2020 Declaratory Ruling, although it invalidated the portion of the Ruling that clarified when a modification defeats a wireless facility's concealment elements.299
In the challenges to the Small Cell and Moratorium Orders, state and local governments challenged the FCC's action under a number of theories, including a number of evergreen administrative law doctrines such as the "arbitrary and capricious" standard and the now defunct Chevron deference framework.300 The local governments argued that the FCC's orders go beyond what sections 253 and 332 permit and do not articulate administrable standards.301 They further argued They further argued
that the orders violated the Constitution by, among other things, compelling them to enforce or that the orders violated the Constitution by, among other things, compelling them to enforce or
administer a federal regulatory program in violation of the Tenth Amendment.administer a federal regulatory program in violation of the Tenth Amendment.
263
However, in August 2020, in City of Portland v. United States, the Ninth Circuit largely upheld both orders.264302
In August 2020, however, the Ninth Circuit largely upheld both orders in City of Portland v. United States.303 As a threshold matter, the Court upheld the FCC As a threshold matter, the Court upheld the FCC
’'s application of its s application of its
“"material material
inhibition”inhibition" standard to determine when municipal regulations standard to determine when municipal regulations
“"prohibit or effectively prohibitprohibit or effectively prohibit
” " the provision of services under the provision of services under
Sectionssections 253 or 332. 253 or 332.
265304 The court reasoned that this standard was The court reasoned that this standard was
consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent and that any differences in the way the FCC now applied consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent and that any differences in the way the FCC now applied
this standard in the 5G context could be this standard in the 5G context could be
“"reasonably explainedreasonably explained
”" by the differences in by the differences in
technology.technology.
266305 Moving on to the orders Moving on to the orders
’' specific rulings, the court held that the Small Cell Order specific rulings, the court held that the Small Cell Order
’s 's fee limitations and shot clocks, and the Moratorium Orderfee limitations and shot clocks, and the Moratorium Order
’'s definitions of express and de facto s definitions of express and de facto
moratoria, were consistent with the statutory provisions and were not arbitrary or capricious.moratoria, were consistent with the statutory provisions and were not arbitrary or capricious.
267 306 The court vacated and remanded, however, the Small Cell OrderThe court vacated and remanded, however, the Small Cell Order
’'s aesthetics requirements.s aesthetics requirements.
268307 It It
reasoned that reasoned that
Sectionsection 332 332
“"expressly permits some difference in treatment of different providers, expressly permits some difference in treatment of different providers,
so long as the treatment is reasonable.so long as the treatment is reasonable.
”269"308 Consequently, the FCC Consequently, the FCC
’'s blanket prohibition that s blanket prohibition that
municipalities may not impose aesthetic requirements on small wireless facilities more municipalities may not impose aesthetic requirements on small wireless facilities more
burdensome than similar infrastructure deployments was, according to the court, inconsistent with burdensome than similar infrastructure deployments was, according to the court, inconsistent with
Section 332.270section 332.309 The court further held that the FCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously by The court further held that the FCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously by
prohibitingprohibiting
subjective aesthetic requirements. aesthetic requirements.
271310 The court explained that The court explained that
"aesthetic regulation of small cells aesthetic regulation of small cells
“should be directed to preventing the should be directed to preventing the
'intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character
deployments,deployments,
”'" and that such harms are and that such harms are
“, "at least to some extent, necessarily subjective.at least to some extent, necessarily subjective.
”272 "311 Separate from the statutory and administrative law issues, the court rejected the constitutional Separate from the statutory and administrative law issues, the court rejected the constitutional
arguments advanced by the municipalities.arguments advanced by the municipalities.
273312 Most notably, the court rejected the argument that Most notably, the court rejected the argument that
the orders violated the Tenth Amendment by requiring the municipalities to the orders violated the Tenth Amendment by requiring the municipalities to
“"enforce federal enforce federal
law.law.
”274"313 The court explained that, rather than The court explained that, rather than
“"commandeer[ing] State and local officials in commandeer[ing] State and local officials in
violation of the Tenth Amendmentviolation of the Tenth Amendment
,”[,]" the orders simply the orders simply
“"confer[confer[
red] on private entities ] on private entities
. . . a federal a federal
right to engage in certain conduct subject to only certain (federal) constraints.right to engage in certain conduct subject to only certain (federal) constraints.
”275
"314
In addition to the Small Cell and Moratorium Order challenges, a consortium of municipalities in In addition to the Small Cell and Moratorium Order challenges, a consortium of municipalities in
California and OregonCalifornia and Oregon
have challenged the June 2020 Declaratory Ruling, alleging that the FCC challenged the June 2020 Declaratory Ruling, alleging that the FCC
violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Constitution, and the Communications Act in violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Constitution, and the Communications Act in
issuing it.276 These proceedings have been stayed until November 2021, with no briefing schedule
262 Id. at 29–34. 263 Id. at 106–16. 264 City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020). 265 Id. at 1035. 266 Id. 267 Id. at 1037–39, 1043–45, 1047–48. 268 Id. at 1040–43. 269 Id. at 1040. 270 Id. at 1040–41. 271 Id. at 1042. 272 Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). 273 Id. at 1048–49. 274 Id. at 1049. 275 Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). 276 Pet. for Rev., League of Cal. Cities v. FCC, No. 20-71765 (9th Cir. June 22, 2020).
Congressional Research Service
29
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
currently set.277 However, one possible point of contention may be whether the Declaratory Ruling impermissibly promulgated new “rules,” rather than merely clarifying existing rules.278
Legislative Activity
Two bills from the 116th Congress addressed state and local authority over small cell siting. One of these bills, the STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act (STREAMLINE Act),279 would have largely adopted the FCC’s conclusions in the Small Cell Order. Notable differences between the STREAMLINE Act and the Small Cell Order include slightly different “shot clock” times and the presence in the STREAMLINE Act of a “deemed granted”issuing it.315 In a 2024 decision, the Ninth Circuit largely rejected these challenges, although it struck down the portion of the Declaratory Ruling that clarified when a modification defeats a wireless facility's concealment elements.316 According to the Ninth Circuit, what the FCC characterized as a clarification was inconsistent with the 2014 Infrastructure Order because the Order's use of the term "concealment element" unambiguously included designs to make the wireless facility less noticeable.317 This inconsistency meant that the FCC's purported clarification was not a mere interpretation but a "legislative rule" (i.e., a new substantive requirement), which the FCC was required to issue through the APA's notice-and-comment process.318 Because the FCC had not followed the notice-and-comment process, the court invalidated this portion of the Declaratory Ruling.319
Legislative Activity
Several bills from the 116th, 117th, and 118th Congresses addressed state and local authority over small cell siting. Some of these bills, such as the STREAMLINE Act,320 the WIRELESS Leadership Act,321 and Title I of the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2023,322 would have largely adopted the FCC's conclusions in the Small Cell Order and would have built on the Order's requirements by adding a "deemed granted" remedy (i.e., allowing a wireless provider' remedy (i.e., allowing a wireless provider’s application to be deemed granted after a sufficient period of inaction). s application to be deemed granted after a sufficient period of inaction).
Another bill,Other bills, such as the the
Accelerating Broadband Development by Empowering Local Communities ActAccelerating Broadband Development by Empowering Local Communities Act
,280323 and the Securing Local Communities Input in Broadband Development Act,324 would have would have
invalidated the Small Cell Order and Moratorium Order.
Community Broadband
A number of local governments throughout the United States offer consumers an option to receive broadband service from a public entity (known as “community broadband” or “municipal broadband”). A number of states currently place restrictions on local government ability to provide community broadband services. The FCC has attempted to preempt state restrictions on community broadband when such restrictions are inconsistent with FCC regulations; however, a recent Sixth Circuit decision held that the FCC could not preempt state regulation of community broadband without an express statutory grant of preemption authority from Congress. Even if Congress expressly grants the FCC authority to preempt state restrictions on community broadband, such a delegation of authority is likely to face constitutional challenges. The FCC’s approach to community broadband, particularly as it implicates the authority of states, involves issues under Gregory v. Ashcroft’s “plain statement” rule and, in some cases, the Tenth Amendment.281
Background
Municipal broadband or community broadband refers generally to any arrangement in which a local government participates in the provision of high-speed internet service to members of its community.282 Government participation can range from public-private partnerships to broadband cooperatives or publicly owned networks. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance identifies more than 560 communities in the United States served by some form of municipal broadband.283
277 Order, League of Cal. Cities v. FCC, No. 20-71765 (9th Cir. July 28, 2021), ECF No. 63. 278 Id.; see also Nat’l League of Cities, Comment on Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests, 8-9 (Oct. 29, 2019) (asserting that changing the Commission’s Section 6409(a) rules through a declaratory ruling “would not comport with the APA’s requirements”). See generally 5 U.S.C. § 553 (setting forth procedures for rulemaking).
279 S. 1699, 116th Cong. (2019). 280 H.R. 530, 116th Cong. (2019). 281 See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991) (articulating the “plain statement” rule); U.S. CONST. amend. X (reserving to the states “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States”). 282 For more background on community broadband generally, see CRS Report R44080, Municipal Broadband:
Background and Policy Debate, by Lennard G. Kruger and Angele A. Gilroy.
283 Community Network Map, COMMUNITY BROADBAND NETWORKS (last visited Sept. 16, 2021),
Congressional Research Service
30
link to page 26 Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
The FCC has historically been supportive of community broadband. In its 2010 National Broadband Plan, the Commission noted that restricting deployment of community broadband “in some cases restricts the country’s ability to close the broadband availability gap.”284 As early as 2000, the Commission favorably acknowledged direct public investment in broadband infrastructure by municipalities.285
FCC Action and Statutory Authority
A number of states currently restrict municipal participation in the provision of broadband service. Some states, such as Nebraska, directly prohibit local governments from participating in the provision of broadband service.286 Other states require municipalities to obtain a certain amount of local support in a referendum before offering broadband service.287 Some states, such as Utah, require municipalities to undergo a series of steps before they may provide broadband service.288
Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League
In several instances, municipalities have petitioned the FCC to preempt state laws that restrict municipal participation in broadband or telecommunications. One of the earliest of these petitions involved a Missouri law, passed in 1997, that prohibited municipalities from providing “telecommunications service.”289 Municipalities petitioned the FCC to preempt this law under Section 253, which, as mentioned, enables the FCC to preempt state or local requirements that “may prohibit or have the effect or prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide” a telecommunications service.290 The FCC, however, declined to preempt the Missouri law based on its understanding that Section 253’s reference to “any entity” does not extend to political subdivisions of a state.291 The FCC relied on the “clear statement” rule of Gregory v. Ashcroft in reaching this conclusion, determining that an intent to apply Section 253 to political subdivisions was not sufficiently clear from the statute’s text to support abrogating the state’s power.292 The case reached the Supreme Court, which affirmed the FCC’s decision in the case Nixon v. Missouri
Municipal League.293 Writing for the majority, Justice Souter invoked the Court’s “working assumption that federal legislation threatening to trench on the States’ arrangements for conducting their own governments should be treated with great skepticism” in the absence of the
https://muninetworks.org/communitymap.
284 FED. COMMC’NS COMM’N, CONNECTING AMERICA: THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN 169 (2010), https://transition.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf.
285 FED. COMMCN’S COMM’N, DEPLOYMENT OF ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY: SECOND REPORT 61, 63-64, 72-73, paras. 140, 150, 181-82 (2000), https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00290.pdf.
286 NEB. REV. STAT. § 86-594 (2020). 287 E.g., MINN. STAT. § 237.19 (2020). 288 UTAH CODE ANN. § 10-18-202 (2020). 289 MO. ANN. STAT. § 392.410 (2016). The law explicitly carves out “internet-type services” from its application. Id. 290 See 47 U.S.C. § 253; “FCC Statutory Authority and Procedure,” supra. 291 Mo. Mun. League, 16 FCC Rcd. 1157, 1162, para. 9 (2001). 292 Id. at 1169, para. 19. 293 541 U.S. 125 (2004).
Congressional Research Service
31
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
plain statement required under Gregory.294 Justice Souter observed that section 253’s reference to “any entity” is susceptible to multiple readings and therefore insufficiently clear.295
Tennessee v. FCC
The cities of Wilson, North Carolina and Chattanooga, Tennessee later brought petitions to preempt state laws restricting the development of municipal broadband in their respective states. Tennessee permits any municipality operating an electric plant to offer cable, video, and internet services only “within its service area.”296 North Carolina similarly restricts city-owned communications providers to providing service “within the corporate limits of the city providing the communications service.”297 Both Wilson and Chattanooga sought to expand coverage of their broadband networks beyond what state law would permit and asked the FCC to preempt their respective state’s law to allow expansion.
The Commission granted the cities’ petitions, relying on Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.298 Section 706 provides, in relevant part:
The Commission . . . shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans . . . by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory
forbearance,
measures
that
promote
competition
in
the
local
telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.299
Though Section 706 does not explicitly mention preemption of state law, the FCC interpreted “regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment” to “undoubtedly” include preemption.300 The Commission squared this interpretation with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gregory and Nixon by determining that the “clear statement” rule did not apply to issues of “federal oversight of interstate commerce,” rather than direct limitations on state government.301 In the Commission’s view, “the question . . . is not whether the municipal systems can provide broadband at all, but rather whether the states may dictate the manner in which interstate commerce is conducted and the nature of competition that should exist for interstate communications.”302 The FCC therefore preempted the Tennessee and North Carolina laws, but emphasized that it would only preempt state laws in instances where a state chooses to permit municipalities to provide broadband, but also limits the municipalities’ exercise of that authority.303
294 Id. at 140. 295 Id. 296 TENN. CODE. ANN. § 7-52-601 (2020). 297 N.C. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 160A-340.1(a)(3) (2020). 298 30 FCC Rcd. 2408 (2015). 299 47 U.S.C. § 1302. 300 30 FCC Rcd. at 2411–12, 2468–69, paras. 9, 145. 301 Id. at 2412, 2472–74, paras. 12, 154–58; see United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 107–08 (2000) (“an ‘assumption’ of nonpre-emption [sic] is not triggered when the State regulates in an area where there has been a history of significant federal presence.”). 302 30 FCC Rcd. at 2412, para. 12. 303 Id., para. 11.
Congressional Research Service
32
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
Following a petition for review from Tennessee and North Carolina, the Sixth Circuit overturned the Commission in Tennessee v. FCC.304 Contrary to the Commission’s determinations, the court determined that the clear statement rule applied to the FCC’s exercise of preemption authority under Section 706. The court noted that, as in Nixon, Tennessee and North Carolina had “made discretionary determinations for their political subdivisions” by passing the laws at issue.305 The FCC’s distinction between preempting state authority over political subdivisions and preempting regulation in a traditionally federal space was, the Sixth Circuit determined, a false one: the court noted that the Tennessee and North Carolina laws “implicate core attributes of state sovereignty and regulate interstate communications,” rather than one or the other.306 Having determined that the clear statement rule applied, the court held that Section 706 does not include a clear statement authorizing preemption of Tennessee and North Carolina’s laws.307 The court maintained, however, that its holding did not address whether Section 706 provides any preemptive authority at all or whether Congress could, consistent with the Constitution, provide the FCC with the power to preempt state laws regulating municipal broadband.308
Constitutional Issues
The courts in Nixon and Tennessee both relied on the “clear statement” rule to determine that Congress had not delegated to the FCC the power to preempt state restrictions on municipally owned broadband or communications networks. Consequently, neither court reached the issue of whether such a delegation would be constitutional.
The United States operates as “a system of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government.”309 Within this system, states “retain substantial sovereign authority” over those aspects not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.310 Among the reserved rights under this state sovereign authority is the right to manage state government through the creation of political subdivisions.311 Relatedly, the Supreme Court has observed that a municipal government “has no privileges or immunities under the Federal Constitution which it may invoke in opposition to the will of its creator.”312 Political subdivisions, in other words, are arms of a state without any sovereign authority of their own, absent a delegation of such power from a state.313
Because the Nixon and Tennessee courts determined the FCC lacked a “plain statement” of authority to preempt state restrictions on municipal broadband and telecommunications services, 304 832 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2016). 305 Id. at 611. 306 Id. at 612. 307 Id. at 613. 308 Id. 309 Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991). 310 Id.; see U.S. CONST. amend. X. 311 U.S. CONST. amend. X; see Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 607–08 (1991) (“The principle is well settled that local ‘governmental units are created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the State as may be entrusted to them . . . in [its] absolute discretion.’” (quoting Sailors v. Bd. of Ed. of Kent Cty., 387 U.S. 105, 108 (1967) (alteration in original))); City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 437 (2002) (“Whether and how to [allocate municipal authority] is a question central to state self-government.”). 312 Williams v. Mayor of Baltimore, 289 U.S. 36, 40 (1933). 313 See Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 178–79 (1907) (“The number, nature, and duration of the powers conferred upon [municipal corporations] rests in the absolute discretion of the state.”)
Congressional Research Service
33
link to page 37 Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
neither court discussed whether such a grant of authority—if made plainly—would be constitutionally permissible. Federal courts have upheld federal legislation that permits municipalities to take actions contrary to state law in other contexts.314 The Nixon court indirectly suggested that a clear statement might be sufficient to support such preemption.315 Because these constitutional issues remain unaddressed, any legislative action taken to preempt state restrictions on community broadband may be subject to constitutional scrutiny.
Legislative Activity
As of the date of this report, several bills have been introduced in the 117th Congress that would address community broadband.316 Additionally, several legislative proposals from past congresses address community broadband. Table 1 summarizes these proposals.
Table 1. Introduced Community Broadband Legislation
Bill No.
Short Title
Congress
Summary
S. 240
Community Broadband
114th
Would have prohibited state law from “prohibiting or
Act
substantially inhibiting” provision of telecommunications service by a public provider
S. 597, H.R.
States’ Rights Municipal
114th
Would have amended Section 706 to explicitly permit
1106
Broadband Act
states to regulate municipal broadband
H.R. 6013
Community Broadband
114th
Would have amended Section 706 to explicitly forbid
Act
states from prohibiting or effectively prohibiting municipal broadband
S. 2853
None
115th
Would have amended Section 706 to include language that would prevent the FCC from relying on Section 706 as a grant of authority
H.R. 7302
Accessible, Affordable
116th
Would have amended Section 706 to prohibit states
(incorporated Internet for All Act
from forbidding provision of advanced
into H.R. 2),
telecommunications capability by a public provider,
S. 4131
public-private partnership, or cooperatively organized provider
H.R. 7363
CONNECT Act
116th
Would have prohibited states or political subdivisions from offering broadband internet access service
Source: CRS compilation of introduced bil s.
A bill corresponding to H.R. 7302 (116th Congress) has been introduced as H.R. 1783 and S. 745 in the 117th Congress.317 A bill corresponding to H.R. 7363 (116th Congress) has been introduced as H.R. 1149 in the 117th Congress.318
314 See, e.g., Lawrence Cty. v. Lead-Deadwood Sch. Dist. No. 40-1, 469 U.S. 256, 257–61 (1985) (holding that a federal statute authorizing local government to spend payments “for any governmental purpose” preempts state statute requiring such funds to be spent in a particular manner); City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320, 324–26, 341 (1958) (permitting city’s exercise of eminent domain over state-owned lands to construct federally authorized dam).
315 See Nixon v. Mo. Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 140 (2004) (observing that “in some instances,” preemption of a state restriction on municipal activity might “operate straightforwardly to provide local choice”). 316 H.R. 1783, S. 745, 117th Cong. (2021); S. 2071, 117th Cong. (2021); H.R. 1149, 117th Cong. (2021). 317 H.R. 1783, 117th Cong. (2021). 318 H.R. 1149, 117th Cong. (2021).
Congressional Research Service
34
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
Cable Operators
Lastly, the Commission has preempted state and local laws regulating cable operators in a manner it deems inconsistent with Title VI, which is the portion of the Communications Act governing cable communications.319 In particular, the Commission has (1) banned state and local governments from taking actions it deems an “unreasonable refusal” to award a cable franchise, (2) required state and local governments to count certain costs toward a statutory cap on cable franchise fees, and (3) limited state and local governments from regulating non-cable services provided by cable operators.320
Title VI
Title VI codifies a “deliberately structured dualism” in the regulation of cable.321 On the one hand, Title VI gives the FCC authority over various operational aspects of cable such as technical standards governing signal quality,322 ownership restrictions,323 and requirements for carrying local broadcast stations.324 On the other hand, it preserves state authority by requiring cable operators to obtain a “franchise” from the relevant state or local authority in the region in which it wishes to provide service.325 It further allows state and local governments to place conditions on the award of franchises, such as requiring cable operators to designate “channel capacity” for public, educational, and government (PEG) programs.326
Title VI, nevertheless, places important limitations on state and local authority. In particular, it caps the “franchise fees” charged to cable operators at 5% of the operator’s gross annual revenue derived from cable services.327 Title VI also prevents franchising authorities (i.e., state and local governments responsible for regulating cable operators) from “unreasonably refus[ing] to award an additional competitive franchise,”328 and it prohibits those authorities from regulating “video programming or other information services.”329
FCC Actions
In a series of orders, the FCC has sought to limit state and local authority over cable operators by elaborating on Title VI’s restrictions. These orders have built on one another and have responded to, and been shaped by, court decisions reviewing their legality. This subsection, consequently, discusses the orders and court decisions together in chronological order.
319 47 U.S.C. §§ 521–573. 320invalidated the Small Cell Order and Moratorium Order.
Conclusion
The scope of the FCC's preemption authority is more than an academic issue. The Commission's authority to displace state law is central to many of its regulatory initiatives and continues to be litigated in federal courts. Delineating the contours of the FCC's preemption authority can become complex once specific statutory provisions are brought to bear on particular issues. At its core, however, the analysis involves applying the basic principles of preemption. As with preemption generally, Congress's purpose is the ultimate "touchstone" for determining the scope of the FCC's preemption authority.325 Courts determine this purpose by examining the FCC's regulatory authority and any specific statutory provisions limiting its ability to preempt state laws.326 Federalism considerations also inform this analysis, with courts on rare occasions requiring a clear statement from Congress authorizing the FCC to preempt state law in a way that upsets the usual balance between the state and federal government.327
Any congressional attempts to address the FCC's authority to preempt may benefit from consideration of each of these issues. To ensure that the Commission has jurisdictional authority to preempt, any desired exercise of preemption should arise under a regulatory function delegated to the FCC—and, should Congress so desire, it may delegate new functions to the FCC by statute.328 If Congress seeks to address the bounds of specific statutory limits on the Commission's preemption authority, it may explicitly spell out those limits. Congress might also ensure that any preemptive language is a "clear statement" of congressional intent to preempt, so as to mitigate constitutional concerns in areas that might disrupt the "normal constitutional balance."329
Footnotes
| 1.
|
47 U.S.C. §§ 151–624.
|
| 2.
|
Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642, 645 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
|
| 3.
|
47 U.S.C. §§ 201–276.
|
| 4.
|
Id. §§ 301–399b.
|
| 5.
|
Id. §§ 521–573.
|
| 6.
|
United States v. Sw. Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 178 (1968) ([T]he authority which we recognize today under § 152(a) is restricted to that reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission's various responsibilities for the regulation of television broadcasting."); United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 662 (1972) ("We therefore concluded . . . that the Commission does have jurisdiction over CATV 'reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of (its) various responsibilities for the regulation of television broadcasting . . . (and) may, for these purposes, issue 'such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with law,' as 'public convenience, interest, or necessity requires.'") (quoting Sw. Cable Co., 392 U.S. at 178).
|
| 7.
|
See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 152(b) (" . . . nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to (1) charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication service by wire or radio of any carrier . . .").
|
| 8.
|
See infra "Overview of the FCC's Preemption Authority Under the Communications Act" for an overview of the FCC's preemption authority.
|
| 9.
|
See, e.g., La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986) ("[A] federal agency may pre-empt state law only when and if it is acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority."); Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1, 75 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ("[I]n any area where the Commission lacks the authority to regulate, it equally lacks the power to preempt state law."); Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Md. v. FCC, 909 F.2d 1510, 1515 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("The FCC cannot regulate (let alone preempt state regulation of) any service that does not fall within its Title II jurisdiction over common carrier services or its Title I jurisdiction over matters 'incidental' to communication by wire.").
|
| 10.
|
47 U.S.C. § 152(b) (providing that, except for certain specified exceptions, "nothing [in the Communications Act] shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to . . . charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication service").
|
| 11.
|
AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 379–82 n.8 (1999) (rejecting the argument that 47 U.S.C. § 152(b) prevents the FCC from issuing rules implementing Title II's local competition provisions on the ground that section 201(b) gives the FCC authority to "prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of the [Communications] Act," but noting that, "[i]nsofar as Congress has remained silent . . . , § 152(b) continues to function" and the FCC could not "regulate any aspect of intrastate communication . . . on the theory that it had an ancillary effect on matters within the Commission's primary jurisdiction.").
|
| 12.
|
47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i).
|
| 13.
|
See, e.g., City of Arlington v. FCC, 668 F.3d 229, 250 (5th Cir. 2012), aff'd 569 U.S. 290 (2013) (stating that section 332(c)(7)(A) "certainly prohibits the FCC from imposing restrictions or limitations that cannot be tied to the language of § 332(c)(7)(B)").
|
| 14.
|
See, e.g., Nixon v. Mo. Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 140–41 (2004) ("[F]ederal legislation threatening to trench on the States' arrangements for conducting their own governments should be treated with great skepticism, and read in a way that preserves a State's chosen disposition of its own power, in the absence of the plain statement Gregory requires. . . . The want of any 'unmistakably clear' statement to that effect would be fatal to respondents' reading.") (citations omitted).
|
| 15.
|
U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
|
| 16.
|
In the Matter of Restoring Internet Freedom, Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 311 (2018) [hereinafter 2018 Internet Order].
|
| 17.
|
Id. at 312–13, ¶¶ 2–4; see also 47 U.S.C. § 153(24) (defining "information service), (53) (defining "telecommunications service").
|
| 18.
|
Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 975 (2005) (explaining that "the [Communications] Act regulates telecommunications carriers, but not information-service providers, as common carriers").
|
| 19.
|
2018 Internet Order, supra note 16, at 426–27, ¶¶ 194, 195.
|
| 20.
|
References in this report to a particular circuit (e.g., the D.C. Circuit) refer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for that circuit.
|
| 21.
|
Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1, 74 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
|
| 22.
|
Id. at 74–76.
|
| 23.
|
ACA Connects v. Bonta, 24 F.4th 1233 (9th Cir. 2022); N.Y. State Telecomms. Ass'n v. James, 101 F.4th 135 (2d Cir. 2024).
|
| 24.
|
In re MCP No. 185, 124 F.4th 993 (6th Cir. 2025).
|
| 25.
|
47 U.S.C. § 541.
|
| 26.
|
Id. §§ 541, 542.
|
| 27.
|
For an in-depth discussion of these orders, see CRS Report R46147, The Cable Franchising Authority of State and Local Governments and the Communications Act, by Chris D. Linebaugh and Eric N. Holmes (2020).
|
| 28.
|
Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 34 FCC Rcd. 6844, 6892, ¶ 88 (2019) [hereinafter Third Order].
|
| 29.
|
Id. at 6900, ¶ 105.
|
| 30.
|
998 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2021).
|
| 31.
|
In the Matter of Missouri Municipal League, Mem. Op. and Order, 16 FCC Rcd. 1162, 1169 (2002).
|
| 32.
|
541 U.S. 125, 140–41 (2004).
|
| 33.
|
City of Wilson, N.C. Petition for Preemption of N.C. Gen. Stat. Sections 160A-340 et seq., 30 FCC Rcd. 2408 (2015).
|
| 34.
|
Id. at 2412, 2472–74, ¶¶ 12, 154–58.
|
| 35.
|
832 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2016).
|
| 36.
|
Id. at 611–13.
|
| 37.
|
See infra "Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)."
|
| 38.
|
Id.
|
| 39.
|
Id.
|
| 40.
|
Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 33 FCC Rcd. 7705 (2018) [hereinafter Moratorium Order].
|
| 41.
|
Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088 (2018) [hereinafter Small Cell Order].
|
| 42.
|
Id. at 9091, ¶¶ 11–12.
|
| 43.
|
Id. at 9093, ¶ 13.
|
| 44.
|
City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020).
|
| 45.
|
Implementation of State and Local Governments' Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests, 35 FCC Rcd. 5977, 5978 (2020) [hereinafter June 2020 Declaratory Ruling].
|
| 46.
|
League of Cal. Cities v. FCC, 118 F.4th 995 (9th Cir. 2024) (per curiam).
|
| 47.
|
Metro. Edison Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 767 F.3d 335, 341 (3d Cir. 2014) ("The doctrine of federal pre-emption, in turn, is rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution . . . .").
|
| 48.
|
U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2; see also Cong. Rsch. Serv., Overview of Supremacy Clause, Constitution Annotated, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/ (last visited May 9, 2025).
|
| 49.
|
City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57, 63 (1988) ("When the Federal Government acts within the authority it possesses under the Constitution, it is empowered to pre-empt state laws to the extent it is believed that such action is necessary to achieve its purposes."); Chicago and N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, 317 (1981) ("But when Congress has chosen to legislate pursuant to its constitutional powers, then a court must find local law pre-empted by federal regulation whenever the 'challenged state statute "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."'") (quoting Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637, 649 (1971)); Oxygenated Fuels Ass'n Inc. v. Davis, 331 F.3d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 2003) ("Congress has the authority, when acting pursuant to its enumerated powers, to preempt state and local laws.").
|
| 50.
|
Murphy v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 584 U.S. 453, 477 (2018) ("Our cases have identified three different types of preemption—'conflict,' 'express,' and 'field' . . . .").
|
| 51.
|
See, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011) ("When a federal law contains an express preemption clause, we 'focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress' preemptive intent.'") (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993)).
|
| 52.
|
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 399 (2012) (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941)).
|
| 53.
|
Murphy, 584 U.S. at 479 (quoting R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Durham Cty., 479 U.S. 130, 140 (1986)).
|
| 54.
|
Fidelity Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982).
|
| 55.
|
Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009).
|
| 56.
|
De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. at 154; see also City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57, 64 (1988).
|
| 57.
|
De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. at 154; see also City of New York, 486 U.S. at 64 ("[I]n a situation where state law is claimed to be pre-empted by federal regulation, a 'narrow focus on Congress' intent to supersede state law [is] misdirected, for '[a] pre-emptive regulation's force does not depend on express congressional authorization to displace state law.' Instead, the correct focus is on the federal agency that seeks to displace state law and on the proper bounds of its lawful authority to undertake such action.") (quoting De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. at 154).
|
| 58.
|
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991) (quoting Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985)).
|
| 59.
|
Id. ("Congressional interference with this decision of the people of Missouri, defining their constitutional officers, would upset the usual constitutional balance of federal and state powers. For this reason, 'it is incumbent upon the federal courts to be certain of Congress' intent before finding that federal law overrides' this balance.") (quoting Atascadero State Hosp., 473 U.S. at 243); Nixon v. Mo. Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 140 (2004) ("[T]he liberating preemption would come only by interposing federal authority between a State and its municipal subdivisions . . . . Hence the need to invoke our working assumption that federal legislation threatening to trench on the States' arrangements for conducting their own governments should be treated with great skepticism, and read in a way that preserves a State's chosen disposition of its own power, in the absence of the plain statement Gregory requires.").
|
| 60.
|
See United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 383 (1961) (declining to disturb an agency's preemption decision "unless it appears from the statute or its legislative history that the accommodation is not one that Congress would have sanctioned.").
|
| 61.
|
See City of New York, 486 U.S. at 63–64, 66; La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986) ("[A] federal agency may pre-empt state law only when and if it is acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority."); Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1, 75 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ("[I]n any area where the Commission lacks the authority to regulate, it equally lacks the power to preempt state law."); Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC, 909 F.2d 1510, 1515 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("The FCC cannot regulate (let alone preempt state regulation of) any service that does not fall within its Title II jurisdiction over common carrier services or its Title I jurisdiction over matters 'incidental' to communication by wire."). As the D.C. Circuit explained in Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, Congress may give the Commission preemption authority even in an area where it has no regulatory authority. Mozilla Corp., 940 F.3d at 75 ("Of course, if a federal law expressly confers upon the agency the authority to preempt, that legislative delegation creates and defines the agency's power to displace state laws."). While the majority maintained that Congress had to grant express preemption authority beyond the Commission's regulatory authority, the dissent in this case argued that such a grant of preemption authority could be implicit. See id. at 101 (Williams, J., dissenting) ("The same principle undergirds a congressional choice (express or implied) to grant an agency equivalent preemptive authority without any parallel federal regulation (by Congress or a federal agency).").
|
| 62.
|
AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 380–81 (1999) ("For even though 'Commission jurisdiction' always follows where the [Communications] Act 'applies,' Commission jurisdiction (so-called 'ancillary' jurisdiction) could exist even where the [Communications] Act does not 'apply.' The term 'apply' limits the substantive reach of the statute (and the concomitant scope of primary FCC jurisdiction), and the phrase 'or to give the Commission jurisdiction' limits, in addition, the FCC's ancillary jurisdiction.").
|
| 63.
|
Mozilla Corp., 940 F.3d at 75.
|
| 64.
|
47 U.S.C. §§ 153, 301–399b; Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642, 645 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ("Congress has given the Commission express and expansive authority to regulate common carrier services, including landline telephony [under Title II].").
|
| 65.
|
47 U.S.C. §§ 301–399b; Comcast, 600 F.3d at 645.
|
| 66.
|
47 U.S.C. §§ 521–573; Comcast, 600 F.3d at 645.
|
| 67.
|
47 U.S.C. §§ 160(a), 201(b), 202(a), 251(a).
|
| 68.
|
Id. §§ 303, 307; Nat'l Ass'n for Better Broad. v. FCC, 849 F.2d 665, 666 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ("Title III of the [Communications] Act establishes a broad grant of authority to the Commission to regulate radio (and television) communications including classification of stations, prescription of the nature of services to be rendered, regulation of the apparatus used, study of new uses and encouragement of more and effective uses of radio, and ultimately the issuance of licenses to operate stations when it finds that the public interest will be served thereby.").
|
| 69.
|
See, e.g., United States v. Sw. Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 178 (1968); United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 650 (1972).
|
| 70.
|
See 47 U.S.C. § 152(a) ("The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio and all interstate and foreign transmission of energy by radio, which originates and/or is received within the United States, and to all persons engaged within the United States in such communication or such transmission of energy by radio, and to the licensing and regulating of all radio stations as hereinafter provided . . . .").
|
| 71.
|
Am. Libr. Ass'n v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689, 693 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see also S.W. Cable Co., 392 U.S. at 178 ("[T]he authority which we recognize today under § 152(a) is restricted to that reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission's various responsibilities for the regulation of television broadcasting. The Commission may, for these purposes, issue 'such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with law,' as 'public convenience, interest, or necessity requires.'"); Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. at 650) ("In [Southwestern Cable], . . . we sustained the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the new industry, at least to the extent 'reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission's various responsibilities for the regulation of television broadcasting' . . . .").
|
| 72.
|
47 U.S.C. § 154(i) ("The Commission may perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions."); see also EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. v. FCC, 704 F.3d 992, 998 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (applying section 4(i) of the Communications Act to the FCC's ancillary jurisdiction).
|
| 73.
|
47 U.S.C. § 152(b).
|
| 74.
|
AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 379–82 n.8 (1999) (rejecting the argument that section 2(b) prevents the FCC from issuing rules implementing Title II's local competition provisions on the ground that section 201(b) gives the FCC authority to "prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of the [Communications] Act," but noting that "[i]nsofar as Congress has remained silent, . . . , § 152(b) continues to function" and the FCC could not "regulate any aspect of intrastate communication . . . on the theory that it had an ancillary effect on matters within the Commission's primary jurisdiction.").
|
| 75.
|
La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 375 n.4 (1986) (distinguishing cases where lower courts held it was "not possible to separate the interstate and the intrastate components of the asserted FCC regulation") (emphasis in the original).
|
| 76.
|
Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1, 77–78 (D.C. Cir. 2019); California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217, 1243 (9th Cir. 1990) ("The impossibility exception, however, is a limited one. The FCC may not justify a preemption order merely by showing that some of the preempted state regulation would, if not preempted, frustrate FCC regulatory goals. Rather, the FCC bears the burden of justifying its entire preemption order by demonstrating that the order is narrowly tailored to preempt only such state regulations as would negate valid FCC regulatory goals."); Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. FCC, 483 F.3d 570, 578 (8th Cir. 2007) ("[T]he "impossibility exception" of 47 U.S.C. § 152(b) allows the FCC to preempt state regulation of a service if (1) it is not possible to separate the interstate and intrastate aspects of the service, and (2) federal regulation is necessary to further a valid federal regulatory objective, i.e., state regulation would conflict with federal regulatory policies.") (citing Qwest Corp. v. Scott, 380 F.3d 367, 372 (8th Cir. 2004)).
|
| 77.
|
See, e.g., Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 75 ("Of course, if a federal law expressly confers upon the agency the authority to preempt, that legislative delegation creates and defines the agency's power to displace state laws.").
|
| 78.
|
47 U.S.C. § 253(a).
|
| 79.
|
Id. § 253(a), (d).
|
| 80.
|
Id. § 253(c).
|
| 81.
|
47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B).
|
| 82.
|
Id.
|
| 83.
|
Id. § 332(c)(7)(A).
|
| 84.
|
City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 250–54 (stating that section 332(c)(7)(A) "certainly prohibits the FCC from imposing restrictions or limitations that cannot be tied to the language of § 332(c)(7)(B)," but also holding that the FCC is "entitled to deference with respect to its exercise of authority to implement § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) and (v)"); see also Up State Tower Co., LLC v. Town of Kiantone, 718 F. App'x 29, 31 n.1 (2d Cir. 2017) ("We agree with the 5th Circuit that because the two FCC Orders cited herein are reasonable constructions of § 332(c)(7)(B), they 'are thus entitled to Chevron deference.'") (citing City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 256).
|
| 85.
|
See CRS Report R48320, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the Future of Agency Interpretations of Law, by Benjamin M. Barczewski (2024) for a further discussion of the Supreme Court's decision overruling the Chevron doctrine.
|
| 86.
|
In the context of cable television, a "franchise" refers to the right to operate a cable system in a given area. For more information, see CRS Report R46147, The Cable Franchising Authority of State and Local Governments and the Communications Act, by Chris D. Linebaugh and Eric N. Holmes (2020).
|
| 87.
|
47 U.S.C. §§ 541(a)(1), 542(b), 544(b).
|
| 88.
|
Id. § 556(c).
|
| 89.
|
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991) (quoting Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanion, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985)).
|
| 90.
|
Nixon v. Mo. Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 140–41 (2004); Tennessee v. FCC, 832 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2016).
|
| 91.
|
See, e.g., Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1, 74 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
|
| 92.
|
See, e.g., City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020); City of Eugene v. FCC, 998 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2021).
|
| 93.
|
47 U.S.C. §§ 153(24), (50)–(51), (53); see also Mozilla Corp., 940 F.3d at 17 ("[T]he 1996 Telecommunications Act [amended the Communications Act to create] two potential classifications for broadband Internet: 'telecommunications services' under Title II of the [Communications] Act and 'information services' under Title I.").
|
| 94.
|
Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 17 ("These similar-sounding terms carry considerable significance: Title II entails common carrier status, see 47 U.S.C. § 153(51) (defining 'telecommunications carrier'), and triggers an array of statutory restrictions and requirements (subject to forbearance at the Commission's election)").
|
| 95.
|
Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623, 650–56 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (holding that the FCC's net neutrality rules were per se common carrier rules and that the FCC could not impose common carrier rules on BIAS providers unless they were classified as telecommunications service providers under the Communications Act).
|
| 96.
|
In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd. 5601 (2015) [hereinafter 2015 Open Internet Order]; In the Matter of Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet, Declaratory Ruling, Order, Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, 89 Fed. Reg. 45404 (2024).
|
| 97.
|
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11264, No More Deference: Sixth Circuit Relies on Loper Bright to Strike Down Net Neutrality Rules, by Chris D. Linebaugh (2025).
|
| 98.
|
In a 2005 decision, National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, the Supreme Court had applied Chevron to uphold a prior FCC order classifying BIAS as an information service. 545 U.S. 967 (2005). Following Brand X, the D.C. Circuit, on several occasions, applied the Chevron doctrine to uphold the FCC's reclassifications of BIAS. See U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 1.
|
| 99.
|
603 U.S. 369 (2024).
|
100.
|
In re MCP No. 185, 124 F.4th 993 (6th Cir. 2025).
| 101.
|
Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 74.
|
| 102.
|
In the Matter of Restoring Internet Freedom, Report an Order, and Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 331 (2018) [hereinafter 2018 Order].
|
| 103.
|
Id. at 427.
|
| 104.
|
Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 75–76.
|
| 105.
|
24 F.4th 1233 (9th Cir. 2022).
|
| 106.
|
California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018, 2018 Cal. Stats. ch. 976 (codified at Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3100–3104 (West 2025)).
|
| 107.
|
ACA Connects v. Bonta, 24 F.4th 1233, 1240 (9th Cir. 2022).
|
| 108.
|
Id. at 1241.
|
| 109.
|
Id.
|
| 110.
|
Id.
|
| 111.
|
Id. at 1242.
|
| 112.
|
101 F.4th 135 (2d Cir. 2024).
|
| 113.
|
Id. at 154.
|
| 114.
|
Id. at 155–56.
|
| 115.
|
Id. at 147–54.
|
| 116.
|
Id. at 147–50.
|
| 117.
|
Id.
|
| 118.
|
Id. at 151.
|
| 119.
|
It is possible that the FCC could adopt a new order in the future, again reclassifying BIAS as a Title II telecommunications service. Should such an order be challenged in a different federal appeals court than the Sixth Circuit, it is possible that this other court of appeals might disagree with the Sixth Circuit's decision. The current FCC chair, however, has voiced agreement with the Sixth Circuit's decision, thus making it unlikely the FCC will attempt to reclassify BIAS in the near future. See Press Release, Brendan Carr, Office of Commissioner, Carr Welcomes Court Order Invalidating President Biden's Plan to Expand Government Control of the Internet Through Title II Regulation (Jan. 2, 2025), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-408580A1.pdf.
|
| 120.
|
California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018, 2018 Cal. Stats. ch. 976 (codified at Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3100–3104 (West 2025)).
|
| 121.
|
Wash. Rev. Code § 19.385.020 (2024).
|
| 122.
|
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9, § 8.175 (2025).
|
| 123.
|
N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 399-zzzzz (McKinney 2025).
|
| 124.
|
H.R. 1006, 116th Cong. (2019); H.R. 1101, 116th Cong. (2019); H.R. 1096, 116th Cong. (2019); H.R. 2136, 116th Cong. (2019).
|
| 125.
|
S. 4676, 117th Cong. (2022); H.R. 8573, 117th Cong. (2022).
|
| 126.
|
47 U.S.C. §§ 521–573.
|
127.
|
CRS Report R46147, CRS Report R46147,
The Cable Franchising Authority of State and Local Governments and the Communications
Act, by Chris D. Linebaugh and Eric N. Holmes, by Chris D. Linebaugh and Eric N. Holmes
, discusses the FCC’s (2020), discusses FCC preemption under Title VI and the legal issues preemption under Title VI and the legal issues
raised by such preemption in more detail. Consequently, this section only provides a brief overview of this topic.raised by such preemption in more detail. Consequently, this section only provides a brief overview of this topic.
321
128.
|
All. for Cmty. Media v. FCC, 529 F.3d 763, 767 (6th Cir. 2008) All. for Cmty. Media v. FCC, 529 F.3d 763, 767 (6th Cir. 2008)
322.
129.
|
47 U.S.C. § 544(e); 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.601–76.640. 47 U.S.C. § 544(e); 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.601–76.640.
323
130.
|
47 U.S.C. § 533; 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.501–76.502. 47 U.S.C. § 533; 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.501–76.502.
324
131.
|
47 U.S.C. § 534; 47 C.F.R. § 76.56. 47 U.S.C. § 534; 47 C.F.R. § 76.56.
325
132.
|
47 U.S.C. §§ 541(a)–(b), 522(10). 47 U.S.C. §§ 541(a)–(b), 522(10).
326
133.
|
Id. §§ 531, 541(a)(4)(B). §§ 531, 541(a)(4)(B).
327 Id. § 542. 328 Id. § 541. 329 Id. § 544(a), (b).
Congressional Research Service
35
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
The FCC issued its first order on this issue in 2007 (First Cable Order).330 In the First Cable Order, the Commission sought to remove burdensome state and local requirements preventing new entrants into the cable market. It did this largely by clarifying when practices by franchising authorities amount to an “unreasonabl[e] refus[al]” to award a franchise.331 The First Cable Order explained that such practices include, among other things, failing to make a final decision on franchise applications within timeframes specified in the order or requiring cable operators to “build out” their cable systems to provide service to certain areas or customers as a condition of granting the franchise.332 The First Order also provided guidance on which costs count toward the 5% franchise fee cap. Among other things, it explained that in-kind expenses unrelated to provision of cable service—such as requests that the cable operator provide traffic light control systems—count toward the 5% cap.333 Lastly, the FCC clarified the limits of franchising authority jurisdiction over “mixed-use” networks providing both cable and non-cable services. It maintained that, under Title VI, franchise authorities only have jurisdiction over cable services.334 Consequently, the FCC said that franchising authorities may not withhold franchises based on issues related to non-cable services or facilities (the “mixed-use” rule).335 Although state and local franchising authorities and their representative organizations challenged the legality of the First Cable Order, the Sixth Circuit denied those challenges.336 In Alliance for Community Media v.
FCC, the Sixth Circuit upheld both the FCC’s authority to issue rules construing Title VI and the specific rules in the First Cable Order itself.337
The First Cable Order applied only to new entrants to the cable market. However, the FCC shortly thereafter adopted another order (Second Cable Order) extending many of the First Cable Order’s rulings to incumbent cable television service providers as well.338 Following the release of the Second Cable Order, the Commission received three petitions for reconsideration, to which it responded with a further order in 2015 (Reconsideration Order).339 In the Reconsideration Order, the FCC affirmed the Second Cable Order’s extension of the First Cable Order’s rulings to incumbent cable operators.340 Most notably, the Reconsideration Order also clarified that “in-kind” (i.e., noncash) payments exacted by franchising authorities, even if related to the provision of cable service, may count toward the maximum 5% franchise fee allowable under Section 622.341
In 2017, in the case Montgomery County v. FCC, the Sixth Circuit vacated the FCC’s determinations in the Second Cable Order and Reconsideration Order on both the issue of
330 Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 22 FCC Rcd. 5101 (2007) [hereinafter First Order].
331 Id. at 5103. 332 Id. at 5134–37, 5142–43, paras. 66–73, 87–91. 333 Id. at 5149–50, paras. 105–108. 334 Id. at 5155, para. 121. 335 Id. 336 All. for Community Media v. FCC, 529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2008). 337 Id. at 772–87. 338 Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 22 FCC Rcd. 19633 (2007) [hereinafter Second Cable Order].
339 Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 30 FCC Rcd. 810 (2015) [hereinafter Reconsideration Order].
340 Id. at 816, paras. 14–15. 341 Id. at 814–16, paras. 11–13.
Congressional Research Service
36
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
incumbent providers and cable-related in-kind expenses.342 Regarding incumbent providers, the court held that the FCC’s extension of its mixed-use network rule to incumbent cable providers was “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).343 To support its mixed-use rule, the FCC had relied on the statutory definition of “cable system,” which explicitly excludes common carrier facilities except to the extent they are “used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers.”344 However, the court explained that, unlike most new entrants, incumbent cable providers are generally not common carriers.345 Consequently, the Commission needed to identify a statutory provision that supported applying the mixed-use rule to non-common carrier entities, which it failed to do.346 Furthermore, the court held that the Commission’s inclusion of cable-related in-kind expenses in the 5% franchise fee cap was arbitrary and capricious.347 The court reasoned that the FCC gave “scarcely any explanation at all” for its decision to expand its interpretation of “franchise fee” to include cable-related exactions.348
In response to Montgomery County, the FCC adopted a new order on August 1, 2019 (Third Cable Order), which clarifies its interpretations of the Cable Act.349 Among other things, the order reiterates the FCC’s position that in-kind (i.e., non-monetary) expenses, even if related to cable service, may count toward the 5% franchise fee cap.350 Per the Sixth Circuit’s admonition, the FCC provided additional justification for this decision, reasoning that, among other things, the statutory definition of franchise fee is broad enough to encompass such expenses and none of the specific statutory exceptions to this definition excludes them entirely.351 The Third Cable Order also reiterates its application of the mixed-use rule to incumbents, relying this time on the Title VI provision prohibiting franchising authorities from “establish[ing] requirements for video programming or other information services.”352
Beyond clarifying that franchising authorities cannot use their Title VI authority to regulate the non-cable aspects of a mixed-use cable system, the Third Cable Order explicitly preempts state and local laws that “impose[] fees or restrictions” on cable operators for the “provision of non-cable services in connection with access to [public] rights-of-way, except as expressly authorized in [Title VI].”353 The Commission responded specifically to an Oregon Supreme Court case, City
of Eugene v. Comcast. In this case, the court upheld the City of Eugene's imposition of a 7% fee—pursuant to a city ordinance, rather than the franchising process—on the revenue a cable operator generated from its provision of broadband internet services.354 The Third Cable Order rejects City of Eugene’s conclusion, however, and preempts the type of state regulation that case
342 863 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2017). 343 Id. at 493. 344 Second Cable Order, 22 FCC Rcd. 19633, 19640, para. 17 (2007). 345 Id. at 492–93. 346 Id. 347 Id. at 491–92 348 Id. 349 Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 34 FCC Rcd. 6844 (2019) [hereinafter Third Cable Order].
350 Id. at 6850–52, para. 12. 351 Id. at 6849–58, paras. 11–22. 352 Id. at 6883, para. 122 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1)). 353 Id. at 6892–93, para. 88. 354 375 P.3d 446, 450–51, 463 (Or. 2016).
Congressional Research Service
37
Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
upheld.355 The FCC reasoned that Title VI establishes the “basic terms of a bargain” by which a cable operator may “access and operate facilities in the local rights-of-way.”356 It explained that, although Congress was “well aware” that cable systems would carry non-cable services as well as cable, it nevertheless “sharply circumscribed” the authority of state and local governments to “regulate the terms of this exchange.”357
Several cities, franchising authorities, and advocacy organizations filed petitions for review of the Third Cable Order in various courts of appeals,358 and these petitions were consolidated and transferred to the Sixth Circuit.359 The Sixth Circuit largely upheld the Third Cable Order in City
of Eugene v. FCC.360 In its decision, the Sixth Circuit determined that the FCC’s inclusion of cable-related in-kind expenses in the 5% franchise fee cap was not arbitrary and capricious.361 Addressing the FCC’s “mixed-use” rule, and specifically the FCC’s repudiation of City of Eugene
v. Comcast, the Sixth Circuit opined that whether a franchising authority has overstepped its power depends on “whether state or local action is ‘inconsistent with’ a specific provision of the [Communications] Act.”362 The court held that the imposition of broadband service fees on a cable operator would be inconsistent with the Title VI provision prohibiting franchising authorities from “establish[ing] requirements for video programming or other information services.”363 Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit held that the FCC may preempt the City of Eugene’s imposition of a broadband service fee on cable operators.364 The court rejected the FCC’s proposed standard for calculating the monetary value of in-kind exactions, holding that the value of these exactions should be calculated based on a cable operator’s cost, rather than their “market value.”365
Conclusion
The scope of the FCC’s preemption authority is not simply an academic issue. The Commission’s authority to displace state law is central to many of its regulatory initiatives and continues to be litigated in federal courts. Delineating the contours of the FCC’s preemption authority can become complex once specific statutory provisions are brought to bear on particular issues. However, at its core the analysis involves applying the basic principles of preemption. As with preemption generally, Congress’s purpose is the ultimate “touchstone” for determining the scope
355 Third Cable Order, 34 FCC Rcd. at 6889, para. 80. 356 Id. at 6891, para. 84. 357 Id. at 6892, para. 88. 358 See City of Pittsburgh v. FCC, No. 19-3478 (3d Cir. Oct. 28, 2019); State of Hawaii v. United States, No. 19-72699 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2019); Anne Arundel Cty. v. FCC, No. 72760 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 24, 2019); All. for Commc’ns Democracy v. FCC, No. 19-72736 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2019); Pet. for Rev., City of Portland v. United States, No. 19-72391 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2019); Pet. for Rev., City of Eugene v. FCC, No. 19-72219 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2019).
359 City of Eugene v. FCC, No. 19-72391 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2019) (order granting motion to consolidate petitions and transfer petitions to the Sixth Circuit); City of Eugene v. FCC, No. 19-4161 (6th Cir. Dec. 2, 2019) (docketing case in the Sixth Circuit).
360 998 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2021). 361 Id. at 708–09. 362 Id. at 711. 363 Id. at 715; see 47 U.S.C. § 544(c). 364 City of Eugene v. FCC, 998 F.3d at 715. Though the Sixth Circuit focused on the mixed-use rule as applied to the City of Eugene, the court’s reasoning suggests that it may uphold similar FCC attempts to preempt state and local “mixed-use” requirements based on the FCC’s theory that these requirements are inconsistent with Title VI. 365 Id. at 710.
Congressional Research Service
38
link to page 9 link to page 13 Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act
of the FCC’s preemption authority.366 Courts determine this purpose by examining the FCC’s regulatory authority and any specific statutory provisions limiting its ability to preempt state laws.367 This analysis is also informed by federalism considerations, with courts on rare occasions requiring a clear statement from Congress authorizing the FCC to preempt state law in a way that upsets the usual balance between the state and federal government.368
Any congressional attempts to address the FCC’s authority to preempt may benefit from consideration of each of these issues. To ensure that the Commission has jurisdictional authority to preempt, any desired exercise of preemption should arise under a regulatory function delegated to the FCC—and, should Congress so desire, it may delegate new functions to the FCC by statute.369 If Congress seeks to address the bounds of specific statutory limits on the Commission’s preemption authority, it may explicitly spell out those limits. And to mitigate constitutional concerns in areas that might disrupt the “normal constitutional balance,” ensuring that any preemptive language is a “clear statement” of congressional intent to preempt could remain key.370
Author Information
Chris D. Linebaugh
Eric N. Holmes
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
366 Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009). 367 See, e.g., “Overview of the FCC’s Preemption Authority Under the Communications Act,” supra. 368 See, e.g., “Clear Statement Rule,” supra. 369 See Mozilla, 940 F.3d 1, 75 (D.C. Cir. 2019). 370 See Nixon v. Mo. Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 140 (2004).
Congressional Research Service
R46736 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED
39
| 134.
|
Id. § 541 (section 621 of the Communications Act).
|
| 135.
|
Id. § 542 (section 622 of the Communications Act).
|
| 136.
|
Id. § 544 (section 624 of the Communications Act).
|
| 137.
|
Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 22 FCC Rcd. 5101 (2007) [hereinafter First Order].
|
| 138.
|
Id. at 5103.
|
| 139.
|
Id. at 5134–37, 5142–43, ¶¶ 66–73, 87–91.
|
| 140.
|
Id. at 5149–50, ¶¶ 105–108.
|
| 141.
|
Id. at 5155, ¶ 121.
|
| 142.
|
Id.
|
| 143.
|
All. for Community Media v. FCC, 529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2008).
|
| 144.
|
Id. at 772–87.
|
| 145.
|
Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 22 FCC Rcd. 19633 (2007) [hereinafter Second Cable Order].
|
| 146.
|
Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 30 FCC Rcd. 810 (2015) [hereinafter Reconsideration Order].
|
| 147.
|
Id. at 816, ¶¶ 14–15.
|
| 148.
|
Id. at 814–16, ¶¶ 11–13.
|
| 149.
|
863 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2017).
|
| 150.
|
Id. at 493.
|
| 151.
|
Second Cable Order, 22 FCC Rcd. 19633, 19640, ¶ 17 (2007).
|
| 152.
|
Id. at 492–93.
|
| 153.
|
Id.
|
| 154.
|
Id. at 491–92
|
| 155.
|
Id.
|
| 156.
|
Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 34 FCC Rcd. 6844 (2019). [hereinafter Third Cable Order].
|
| 157.
|
Id. at 6850–52, ¶ 12.
|
| 158.
|
Id. at 6849–58, ¶¶ 11–22.
|
| 159.
|
Id. at 6883, ¶ 122 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1)).
|
| 160.
|
Id. at 6892–93, ¶ 88.
|
| 161.
|
375 P.3d 446, 450–51, 463 (Or. 2016).
|
| 162.
|
Third Cable Order, 34 FCC Rcd. at 6889, ¶ 80.
|
| 163.
|
Id. at 6891, ¶ 84.
|
| 164.
|
Id. at 6892, ¶ 88.
|
| 165.
|
See Petition for Review, City of Pittsburgh v. FCC, No. 19-3478 (3d Cir. Oct. 28, 2019); Petition for Review, Hawaii v. United States, No. 19-72699 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2019); Petition for Review, Anne Arundel Cty. v. FCC, No. 72760 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 24, 2019); Petition for Review, All. for Commc'ns Democracy v. FCC, No. 19-72736 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2019); Petition for Review, City of Portland v. United States, No. 19-72391 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2019); Petition for Review, City of Eugene v. FCC, No. 19-72219 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2019).
|
| 166.
|
Order, City of Portland v. FCC, No. 19-72391 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2019) (order granting motion to consolidate petitions and transfer petitions to the Sixth Circuit); Order, City of Eugene v. FCC, No. 19-4161 (6th Cir. Dec. 2, 2019) (docketing case in the Sixth Circuit).
|
| 167.
|
998 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2021).
|
| 168.
|
Id. at 708–09.
|
| 169.
|
Id. at 711.
|
| 170.
|
Id. at 715; see 47 U.S.C. § 544(c).
|
| 171.
|
City of Eugene v. FCC, 998 F.3d at 715. Though the Sixth Circuit focused on the mixed-use rule as applied to the City of Eugene, the court's reasoning suggests that it may uphold similar FCC attempts to preempt state and local "mixed-use" requirements based on the FCC's theory that these requirements are inconsistent with Title VI.
|
| 172.
|
Id. at 710.
|
| 173.
|
See Gregory, 501 U.S. at 460 (articulating the "plain statement" rule); U.S. Const. amend. X (reserving to the states "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States").
|
| 174.
|
For more background on community broadband generally, see CRS Report R44080, Municipal Broadband: Background and Policy Debate, by Lennard G. Kruger and Angele A. Gilroy (2017).
|
| 175.
|
Community Network Map, Cmty. Broadband Networks, https://muninetworks.org/communitymap (last visited Apr. 25, 2025).
|
| 176.
|
FCC, Connecting America: The Nat'l Broadband Plan 169 (2010), https://transition.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf.
|
| 177.
|
FCC, Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability: Second Report 61, 63-64, 72–73, ¶¶ 140, 150, 181-82 (2000), https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00290.pdf.
|
| 178.
|
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-594 (2025).
|
| 179.
|
E.g., Minn. Stat. § 237.19 (2025).
|
| 180.
|
Utah Code Ann. § 10-18-202 (West 2025).
|
| 181.
|
Mo. Ann. Stat. § 392.410 (West 2024). The law explicitly carves out "internet-type services" from its application. Id.
|
| 182.
|
See 47 U.S.C. § 253; see supra "FCC Statutory Authority and Procedure."
|
| 183.
|
Mo. Mun. League, 16 FCC Rcd. 1157, 1162, ¶ 9 (2001). Three of the five commissioners, including then-Chairman William Kennard, urged Congress to clarify its intention in section 253 with respect to prohibitions on entry by municipal utilities. Id. at 1172–73.
|
| 184.
|
Id. at 1169, ¶ 19.
|
| 185.
|
541 U.S. 125 (2004).
|
| 186.
|
Id. at 140.
|
| 187.
|
Id.
|
| 188.
|
Tenn. Code. Ann. § 7-52-601 (West 2025).
|
| 189.
|
N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 160A-340.1(a)(3) (West 2024).
|
| 190.
|
30 FCC Rcd. 2408 (2015).
|
| 191.
|
47 U.S.C. § 1302.
|
| 192.
|
30 FCC Rcd. at 2411–12, 2468–69, ¶¶ 9, 145.
|
| 193.
|
Id. at 2412, 2472–74, ¶¶ 12, 154–58; see United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 107–08 (2000) ("an 'assumption' of nonpre-emption [sic] is not triggered when the State regulates in an area where there has been a history of significant federal presence").
|
| 194.
|
30 FCC Rcd. at 2412, ¶ 12.
|
| 195.
|
Id., ¶ 11.
|
| 196.
|
832 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2016).
|
| 197.
|
Id. at 611.
|
| 198.
|
Id. at 612.
|
| 199.
|
Id. at 613.
|
| 200.
|
Id.
|
| 201.
|
Gregory, 501 U.S. at 457.
|
| 202.
|
Id.; see U.S. Const. amend. X.
|
| 203.
|
U.S. Const. amend. X; see Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 607–08 (1991) ("The principle is well settled that local 'governmental units are created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the State as may be entrusted to them . . . in [its] absolute discretion.'" (quoting Sailors v. Bd. of Ed. of Kent Cty., 387 U.S. 105, 108 (1967) (alteration in original))); City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 437 (2002) ("Whether and how to [allocate municipal authority] is a question central to state self-government.").
|
| 204.
|
Williams v. Mayor of Balt., 289 U.S. 36, 40 (1933).
|
| 205.
|
See Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 178–79 (1907) ("The number, nature, and duration of the powers conferred upon [municipal corporations] rests in the absolute discretion of the state.")
|
| 206.
|
See, e.g., Lawrence Cty. v. Lead-Deadwood Sch. Dist. No. 40-1, 469 U.S. 256, 257–61 (1985) (holding that a federal statute authorizing local government to spend payments "for any governmental purpose" preempts state statute requiring such funds to be spent in a particular manner); City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320, 324–26, 341 (1958) (permitting city's exercise of eminent domain over state-owned lands to construct federally authorized dam).
|
| 207.
|
See Nixon v. Mo. Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 140 (2004) (observing that "in some instances," preemption of a state restriction on municipal activity might "operate straightforwardly to provide local choice").
|
| 208.
|
Vonage Holdings Corp., 19 FCC Rcd. 22404, 22411, ¶ 14 (2004) (relying on "impossibility" preemption to preempt a state regulatory order).
|
| 209.
|
See Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Neb. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 564 F.3d 900, 904 (8th Cir. 2009); Charter Advanced Servs. (MN) LLC v. Lange, 903 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2018).
|
| 210.
|
IP-Enabled Services, 19 FCC Rcd. 4863 (2004).
|
| 211.
|
See id. at 4865–67.
|
| 212.
|
E.g., IP-Enabled Services, E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, 20 FCC Rcd. 10245 (2005) (requiring VoIP providers to supply 911 emergency calling capabilities); Universal Service Contribution Methodology, 21 FCC Rcd. 7518 (establishing universal service contribution obligations for VoIP providers); Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 22 FCC Rcd. 6927 (2007) (extending consumer privacy requirements to VoIP providers); IP-Enabled Services, 22 FCC Rcd. 11275 (2007) (extending Telecommunications Relay Service requirements to VoIP providers).
|
| 213.
|
FCC, Public Notice on Proposed Rule That Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks to Refresh the Record on Truth-in-Billing Rules To Ensure Protections for All Consumers of Voice Services (Dec. 13, 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-1271A1.pdf.
|
| 214.
|
See infra "State Action and Legal Challenges."
|
| 215.
|
See supra "The FCC's Jurisdictional Authority" for more discussion of "impossibility" preemption.
|
| 216.
|
Id.
|
| 217.
|
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 364.01(3) (West 2024); id. § 364.011(3).
|
| 218.
|
In re Complaint of the Minn. Dep't of Commerce Against Vonage Holding Corp. Regarding Lack of Authority to Operate in Minn., No. P-6214/C-03-108, 2003 WL 22336092 (Minn. P.U.C. Sept. 11, 2003), enjoined by Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 290 F. Supp. 2d 993 (D. Minn. 2003).
|
| 219.
|
Vonage Holdings Corp., 19 FCC Rcd. 22404 (2004).
|
| 220.
|
See id. at 22412, ¶ 15.
|
| 221.
|
Id. at 22415, ¶ 20.
|
| 222.
|
Id. at 22415–17, ¶¶ 20–22.
|
| 223.
|
Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. FCC, 483 F.3d 570, 578–79 (8th Cir. 2007).
|
| 224.
|
Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Neb. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 564 F.3d 900, 904 (8th Cir. 2009) (preempting state regulation).
|
| 225.
|
See, e.g., id.; N.M. Pub. Regul. Comm'n v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 1370 (D.N.M. 2009) (dismissing declaratory judgment action by state requiring Vonage to pay into New Mexico Universal Service Fund).
|
| 226.
|
903 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2018).
|
| 227.
|
Id. (quoting Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 483 F.3d at 580).
|
| 228.
|
See supra "Broadband Regulation."
|
| 229.
|
Compare Mozilla v. FCC, 904 F.3d 1, 76–80 (D.C. Cir. 2019) with Charter Adv. Servs., 903 F.3d at 719; see also Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 483 F.3d at 576.
|
| 230.
|
Lipschultz v. Charter Adv. Servs. (MN), LLC, 140 S. Ct. 6 (2019) (Mem.) (Thomas, J., concurring).
|
| 231.
|
Id. at 7 (quoting Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 586 (2009) (Thomas, J., concurring).
|
| 232.
|
Id. at 7–8 (quoting Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 588 (Thomas, J., concurring). Justice Thomas nonetheless concurred in the denial of certiorari because the petition did not raise the basis of preemption. Id.
|
| 233.
|
See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 9.11 (2025) (requiring interconnected VoIP service providers to provide 911 service); 47 C.F.R. § 54.706 (requiring interconnected VoIP providers to contribute to federal universal service support mechanisms); 47 C.F.R. § 64.604 (requiring VoIP contributions to Telecommunications Relay Service fund).
|
| 234.
|
E.g., IP-Enabled Services E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, 20 FCC Rcd. 10245, 10261–66, ¶¶ 26–35 (2005).
|
| 235.
|
For further technical background, see CRS Report R45485, Fifth-Generation (5G) Telecommunications Technologies: Issues for Congress, by Jill C. Gallagher and Michael E. DeVine (2018).
|
| 236.
|
Small Cell Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088, 9089, ¶ 3 (2018); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(l) (defining "small wireless facilities").
|
| 237.
|
See generally Nat'l League of Cities, Municipal Action Guide: Small Cell Wireless Technology in Cities 5 (2018), https://www.nlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/CS_SmallCell_MAG_FINAL.pdf (outlining potential issues faced by municipalities in managing small cell sites).
|
| 238.
|
See Michael T.N. Fitch, Legislation Streamlining Wireless Small Cell Deployment Enacted in 25 States, Nat'l L. Rev. (July 8, 2019), https://www.natlawreview.com/article/legislation-streamlining-wireless-small-cell-deployment-enacted-25-states.
|
| 239.
|
E.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-27-403, 38-5.5-108 (2025); Del. Code Ann. tit. 17, §§ 1605, 1609 (2024).
|
| 240.
|
See, e.g., U.S. Policy Action on 5G & 4G Small Cells, Environmental Health Trust, Environmental Health Trust, https://ehtrust.org/usa-city-ordinances-to-limit-and-control-wireless-facilities-small-cells-in-rights-of-ways/ (collecting examples of state and local actions to restrict 5G wireless facilities or investigate negative health effects) (last visited Apr. 17, 2025).
|
| 241.
|
See, e.g., Press Release, Nat'l Ass'n of Cntys., Counties, Cities Voice Concern over FCC's Small Cell Ruling (Sept. 26, 2018), https://www.naco.org/resources/counties-cities-voice-concern-over-fcc-small-cell-ruling.
|
| 242.
|
47 U.S.C. § 253(a), (d); see supra "Overview of the FCC's Preemption Authority Under the Communications Act."
|
| 243.
|
Id. § 253(b).
|
| 244.
|
Id. § 253(c).
|
| 245.
|
Id. § 332(c)(7)(B); see supra "Overview of the FCC's Preemption Authority Under the Communications Act."
|
| 246.
|
Id. §§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), 332(c)(7)(B)(ii).
|
| 247.
|
Id. §§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I), 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
|
| 248.
|
Id. § 332(c)(7)(A).
|
| 249.
|
Id. § 253(d); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1.
|
| 250.
|
47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).
|
| 251.
|
Id. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v) ("Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with [the clause prohibiting state and local governments from regulating the placement, construction, and modification of wireless facilities based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions] may petition the Commission for relief.").
|
| 252.
|
City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 251–52 (5th Cir. 201) ("In sum, we conclude that § 332(c)(7) is ambiguous with respect to the FCC's authority to establish the 90- and 150-day time frames. Although the statute clearly bars the FCC from using its general rulemaking powers under the Communications Act to create additional limitations on state and local governments beyond those the statute provides in § 332(c)(7)(B), the statute is silent on the question of whether the FCC can use its general authority under the Communications Act to implement § 332(c)(7)(B)'s limitations."); see also Up State Tower Co., 718 F. App'x at 31 n.1 ("We agree with the 5th Circuit that because the two FCC Orders cited herein are reasonable constructions of § 332(c)(7)(B), they 'are thus entitled to Chevron deference.'") (citing City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 256).
|
| 253.
|
See supra "Broadband Regulation" for a further discussion of the now-overruled Chevron doctrine.
|
| 254.
|
Pub. L. No. 112-96, title VI, 126 Stat. 156, 232 (codified as 47 U.S.C. § 1455).
|
| 255.
|
47 U.S.C. § 1455(a).
|
| 256.
|
See 47 U.S.C. § 1403(a) (directing the FCC to implement and enforce the Spectrum Act "as if [it] is a part of the Communications Act of 1934").
|
| 257.
|
Moratorium Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 7705 (2018).
|
| 258.
|
Small Cell Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088 (2018).
|
| 259.
|
Implementation of State and Local Governments' Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests, 35 FCC Rcd. 5977 (2020) [hereinafter June 2020 Declaratory Ruling]; see also Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Siting Policies, 30 FCC Rcd. 31, 43, ¶¶ 135–241 (2014) [hereinafter 2014 Infrastructure Order] (promulgating regulations under section 6409(a)).
|
| 260.
|
June 2020 Declaratory Ruling, 35 FCC Rcd. at 5978–79, ¶ 2.
|
| 261.
|
Moratorium Order, 33 FCC Rcd. at 7775, ¶ 140. Because the Moratorium Order relies on section 253, it applies to all facilities used in the provision of telecommunications service, not just wireless facilities. Compare 47 U.S.C. § 253(a) (applying to any legal requirement that affects "any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service) with 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) (singling out "personal wireless service facilities").
|
| 262.
|
Id. at 7777, 7780, ¶¶ 145, 149.
|
| 263.
|
Id. at 7779, 7782, ¶¶ 147, 151.
|
| 264.
|
Id. at 7779–80, ¶ 148.
|
| 265.
|
47 U.S.C. § 253(b).
|
| 266.
|
Moratorium Order, 33 FCC Rcd. at 7782–83, ¶ 154.
|
| 267.
|
Id. at 7783-84, ¶¶ 155–56.
|
| 268.
|
Id. at 7784-85, ¶ 157.
|
| 269.
|
47 U.S.C. § 253(c).
|
| 270.
|
Moratorium Order, 33 FCC Rcd. at 7786, ¶ 159.
|
| 271.
|
Id. at 7786, ¶ 160 (quoting TCI Cablevision of Oakland Cty., 12 FCC Rcd. 21396, 21441, ¶ 103 (1997)).
|
| 272.
|
Id. at 7786–87, ¶ 160.
|
| 273.
|
Small Cell Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088, 9102, ¶ 35 (2018) (quoting California Payphone Ass'n, Petition for Preemption of Ordinance No. 576 NS of the City of Huntington Park, Cal., 12 FCC Rcd. 14191, 14206, ¶ 31 (1997) [hereinafter California Payphone]).
|
| 274.
|
Id. at 9112–13, ¶ 50.
|
| 275.
|
Id. at 9132, ¶ 86.
|
| 276.
|
Id. at 9102, ¶ 35 (citing California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd. at 14206, ¶ 31).
|
| 277.
|
Id.; see, e.g., TCG N.Y., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 305 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2002); P.R. Telephone Co. v. Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 2006); RT Commc'ns v. FCC, 201 F.3d 1264, 1268 (10th Cir. 2000).
|
| 278.
|
Small Cell Order, 33 FCC Rcd. at 9104, ¶ 37.
|
| 279.
|
Id. at 9112–13, ¶ 50.
|
| 280.
|
Id. at 9113–14, ¶ 52 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 253(c)).
|
| 281.
|
Id. at 9114, ¶ 53.
|
| 282.
|
Id. at 9129, ¶ 79.
|
| 283.
|
Id. at 9132, ¶ 87.
|
| 284.
|
Id.
|
| 285.
|
Id. at 9132, ¶¶ 87–88.
|
| 286.
|
Id. at 9092, ¶ 13.
|
| 287.
|
Id. at 9148–49, ¶¶ 117–118.
|
| 288.
|
Id. at 9149, ¶ 120.
|
| 289.
|
Id.
|
| 290.
|
2014 Infrastructure Order, 30 FCC Rcd. 31 (2014) (codified at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100).
|
| 291.
|
47 U.S.C. § 1455(a).
|
| 292.
|
47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(7).
|
| 293.
|
Id. § 1.6100(c).
|
| 294.
|
Montgomery Cty. v. FCC, 811 F.3d 121 (4th Cir. 2015).
|
| 295.
|
June 2020 Declaratory Ruling, 35 FCC Rcd. at 5986, ¶ 16.
|
| 296.
|
Id. at 5989–99, ¶¶ 24–44; see 47 C.F.R. 1.6100(b)(7) (defining "substantial change" for purposes of section 6409(a)).
|
| 297.
|
June 2020 Declaratory Ruling, 35 FCC Rcd. at 5994–98.
|
| 298.
|
City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020) (upholding all of the FCC's requirements except for its aesthetic requirements).
|
| 299.
|
League of Cal. Cities v. FCC, 118 F.4th 995 (9th Cir. 2024) (per curiam).
|
| 300.
|
See Brief for Petitioners, City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020) (No. 18-72689), ECF No. 62.
|
| 301.
|
Id. at 29–34.
|
| 302.
|
Id. at 106–16.
|
| 303.
|
City of Portland, 969 F.3d at 1020.
|
| 304.
|
Id. at 1035.
|
| 305.
|
Id.
|
| 306.
|
Id. at 1037–39, 1043–45, 1047–48.
|
| 307.
|
Id. at 1040–43.
|
| 308.
|
Id. at 1040.
|
| 309.
|
Id. at 1040–41.
|
| 310.
|
Id. at 1042.
|
| 311.
|
Id. (quoting Small Cell Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088, 9132, ¶ 87 (2018)).
|
| 312.
|
Id. at 1048–49.
|
| 313.
|
Id. at 1049.
|
| 314.
|
Id. (quoting Murphy v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 584 U.S. 453, 476 (2018)).
|
| 315.
|
Petition for Review, League of Cal. Cities v. FCC, 118 F.4th 995 (9th Cir. 2024) (per curiam) (No. 20-71765), ECF No. 1.
|
| 316.
|
League of Cal. Cities v. FCC, 118 F.4th 995 (9th Cir. 2024) (per curiam).
|
| 317.
|
Id. at 1024–28.
|
| 318.
|
Id. at 1028.
|
| 319.
|
Id. at 1030–31.
|
| 320.
|
S. 1699, 116th Cong. (2019).
|
| 321.
|
H.R. 1060, 117th Cong. (2021).
|
| 322.
|
H.R. 3557, 118th Cong. (2023).
|
| 323.
|
H.R. 530, 116th Cong. (2019).
|
| 324.
|
H.R. 8082, 118th Cong. (2024).
|
| 325.
|
Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009).
|
| 326.
|
See, e.g., supra "Overview of the FCC's Preemption Authority Under the Communications Act."
|
| 327.
|
See, e.g., supra "Clear Statement Rule."
|
| 328.
|
See Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1, 75 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
|
| 329.
|
See Nixon v. Mo. Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 140 (2004).
|