Shifting Sands: SCOTUS Agrees to Revisit FCC Deference Under the Hobbs Act
In a significant development, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari to revisit whether federal district courts must defer to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) under the Administrative Orders Review Act, 28 U.S.C. §2342(1), commonly known as the Hobbs Act.
The decision to hear McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation marks another pivotal moment in administrative law. Over the past few terms, the Supreme Court has steadily moved toward limiting deference to administrative agencies. This trend was most evident in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, where the Court eliminated Chevron deference—a doctrine that had, for four decades, operated alongside the Hobbs Act, making it unlikely that trial courts would second-guess the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA, even when those interpretations seemed to expand the statute beyond what Congress originally intended in 1991. The Supreme Court’s willingness to reconsider the scope of the Hobbs Act signals a potential shift towards greater judicial independence in interpreting statutes like the TCPA. Should the Court rule that the Hobbs Act is to be applied narrowly, lower courts may have more flexibility in interpreting the TCPA, potentially leading to differing interpretations across jurisdictions.
The Hobbs Act grants exclusive authority to federal courts of appeals to hear challenges to FCC decisions, including those related to the TCPA, and requires that such challenges be filed within 60 days of a final FCC order. Because of this, district courts are typically required to defer to FCC rulings during litigation, in order to avoid encroaching on the appellate courts’ exclusive jurisdiction to invalidate FCC orders. However, the rigidity of this deference was questioned, though not fully resolved, by the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in PDR Network LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. In that case, the Court remanded the issue without determining whether district courts must always defer to FCC interpretations or whether some rulings, such as interpretive rules, are not binding. Additionally, the Court raised the issue of whether due process allows FCC orders to bind companies that did not have an opportunity to challenge the orders—such as companies that were not in business when the order was finalized.
The current case, McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, centers around unsolicited fax advertisements and whether the FCC’s ruling that the TCPA does not cover faxes received via electronic fax services should be binding on courts. Different circuit courts have varied in how much deference they give to FCC interpretations, resulting in conflicting outcomes in TCPA litigation. A ruling in this case is likely to clarify the extent of judicial review and whether district courts can challenge FCC rulings on issues like junk faxes and telemarketing regulations.
The stakes are high, as the decision will impact how TCPA cases are litigated nationwide and may open the door to differing interpretations of the statute depending on the court. In this post-Chevron era, where agency deference is increasingly scrutinized, the Supreme Court’s ruling could significantly alter how courts approach FCC rulings under the Hobbs Act. This decision will not only affect TCPA litigation but also influence broader questions about the authority that courts should grant to administrative agencies.
