In City of Arlington & Cable, Telecommunications, and Technology Committee v. FCC the Supreme Court will decide whether courts should defer to a federal agency’s determination that it has authority to interpret a statute.  The SLLC’s amicus brief, which ICMA signed onto, argues courts should apply no deference. 

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires state and local governments to respond to requests to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a “reasonable period of time.”  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) interpreted a “reasonable period of time” as being 90 or 150 days. The City of Arlington argued that the FCC lacked statutory authority to interpret this language.  The FCC disagreed and claimed that its interpretation of its jurisdiction is subject to deferential review under Chevron v. NRDC.  The Fifth Circuit, relying on past circuit court precedent, applied Chevron deference to the FCC’s interpretation of its own statutory authority under the Telecommunications Act and concluded that the FCC had jurisdiction to interpret a “reasonable period of time.”

The SLLC’s amicus brief argues, among other things, that state and local governments are often regulated by federal agencies and often regulate the same subject matter as federal agencies. As a result, allowing federal agencies to determine the scope of their own jurisdiction, with only deferential review by courts, would allow federal agencies to encroach upon the authority of state and local governments, as illustrated by this case.

All of the Big Seven either joined the SLLC’s brief or were a party in this case and filed a brief as a party.  The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and SLLC associate member the Government Finance Officers Association also signed onto the SLLC’s brief.

Oral argument will be heard in this case on January 16, 2013. 

Download a copy of the amicus brief here.