Practical Implications
Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2024 5:46 am
Justice Kavanaugh (with Justices Gorsuch and Alito joining and Thomas joining and writing a separate concurrence (with Gorsuch joining as well)) concurred with the decision to vacate the Fourth Circuit’s decision that the District Court was bound to follow the FCC’s decision, but also stated that the Court could have answered the question presented without sending it back to the Fourth Circuit. In short, Justice Kavanaugh believes that the District Court was not bound to follow the FCC’s 2006 Order, that PDR could have argued that the FCC’s interpretation was wrong, and that by disallowing PDR of that chance, the Fourth Circuit allowed more deference to the FCC then is permitted.
The Court’s decision in PDR Network was an epic letdown bc data america for those in the TCPA defense community. Given the new makeup of the Court, many expected the Court to use PDR Network as a vehicle to reduce the deference given to the FCC, which has continuously expanded the reach of the TCPA beyond the plain language of the statute. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, TCPA litigation still lacks any form of clarity: clarity surrounding definitions within the statute (including how to define an automatic telephone dialing system), clarity surrounding the effect of the ACA decision and its relationship with the FCC 2015 ruling, and clarity in the deference courts musts give to FCC rulings and interpretations.
Justice Breyer’s decision ultimately fails to provide such guidance and, in fact, could introduce more uncertainty into the landscape. When faced with an FCC order, parties may now seek to litigate the questions raised by the majority opinion, i.e., whether the order is a “legislative rule” or merely an “interpretive rule,” and whether it was subject to a “prior” and “adequate” review. This could lead to vastly different rulings from courts across the country. Moreover, district court judges may feel more empowered to ignore FCC orders, creating even more uncertainty for TCPA litigants.
However, the concurring opinions offer a glimpse of how the Court could rule in the future. In his concurrence, Justice Thomas wrote that the PDR Network case “emphasizes the need to reconsider” Chevron deference to agency interpretations. Additionally, Justice Kavanaugh’s analysis in his concurring opinion provides an evisceration of the Hobbs Act that could be adopted in the future. He concluded that the Hobbs Act leaves room for a defendant in an enforcement action to argue that the agency’s interpretation was wrong. However, even if Justice Kavanaugh’s analysis is eventually adopted, businesses may still lack the TCPA clarity they crave, as courts across the country could still reach different conclusions on an agency’s interpretation.
The Court’s decision in PDR Network was an epic letdown bc data america for those in the TCPA defense community. Given the new makeup of the Court, many expected the Court to use PDR Network as a vehicle to reduce the deference given to the FCC, which has continuously expanded the reach of the TCPA beyond the plain language of the statute. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, TCPA litigation still lacks any form of clarity: clarity surrounding definitions within the statute (including how to define an automatic telephone dialing system), clarity surrounding the effect of the ACA decision and its relationship with the FCC 2015 ruling, and clarity in the deference courts musts give to FCC rulings and interpretations.
Justice Breyer’s decision ultimately fails to provide such guidance and, in fact, could introduce more uncertainty into the landscape. When faced with an FCC order, parties may now seek to litigate the questions raised by the majority opinion, i.e., whether the order is a “legislative rule” or merely an “interpretive rule,” and whether it was subject to a “prior” and “adequate” review. This could lead to vastly different rulings from courts across the country. Moreover, district court judges may feel more empowered to ignore FCC orders, creating even more uncertainty for TCPA litigants.
However, the concurring opinions offer a glimpse of how the Court could rule in the future. In his concurrence, Justice Thomas wrote that the PDR Network case “emphasizes the need to reconsider” Chevron deference to agency interpretations. Additionally, Justice Kavanaugh’s analysis in his concurring opinion provides an evisceration of the Hobbs Act that could be adopted in the future. He concluded that the Hobbs Act leaves room for a defendant in an enforcement action to argue that the agency’s interpretation was wrong. However, even if Justice Kavanaugh’s analysis is eventually adopted, businesses may still lack the TCPA clarity they crave, as courts across the country could still reach different conclusions on an agency’s interpretation.