Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Direct Communications Cedar Valley, LLC v. Federal Communications Commission
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided May 23, 2014No. Nos. 11-9900, 11-9581, 11-9585, 11-9586, 11-9587, 11-9588, 11-9589, 11-9590, 11-9591, 11-9592, 11-9594, 11-9595, 11-9596, 11-9597, 12-9500, 12-9510, 12-9511, 12-9513, 12-9514, 12-9517, 12-9520, 12-9521, 12-9522, 12-9523, 12-9524, 12-9528, 12-9530, 12-9531, 12-9532, 12-9533, 12-9534, 12-9575Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBacharach, Circuit Judge
I join virtually all of Chief Judge Bris-coe’s thorough, persuasive opinion. But, I respectfully dissent on Part IV(A)(2). There, the majority rejects the Petitioners’ challenge to the sufficiency of the budget for the Universal Service Fund. On this limited issue, I respectfully dissent. In my view, the FCC failed to supply a rational basis for its conclusion that an annual budget of $4.5 billion would suffice with the new requirements for broadband capability. In this respect, I believe the FCC *1105acted arbitrarily in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The FCC budgeted $4.5 billion…
2Cases cited73 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Booth v. ChurnerSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.