Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States Telecom Ass'n v. Federal Communications Commission

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided June 14, 2016No. 15-1063; 15-1078, 15-1086, 15-1090, 15-1091, 15-1092, 15-1095, 15-1099, 15-1117, 15-1128, 15-1151, 15-1164Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWilliams, Senior Circuit Judge

I agree with much of the majority opinion but am constrained to dissent. In my view the Commission’s Order must be vacated for three reasons:

I. The Commission’s justification of its switch in classification of broadband from a Title I information service to a Title II telecommunications service fails for want of reasoned decisionmaking, (a) Its assessment of broadband providers’ reliance on the now-abandoned classification disregards the record, in violation of its obligation under F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515, 129 S.Ct. 1800, 173 L.Ed.2d 738 (2009). Furthermore,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet ServicesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  3. Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
  4. Standard Oil Co. of California v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  5. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPASupreme Court of the United States · 2014

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API