Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Media Access Project, People for the American Way, and Union of Concerned Scientists v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided August 29, 1989No. 88-1760Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partD.H. Ginsburg, Circuit Judge

In my view, the court lacks jurisdiction over this petition for review. The FCC rulemaking at issue was not done “under” the Communications Act of 1934 within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. § 402(a) (“any order of the Commission under this chapter”), and therefore does not trigger the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2342(1).

The Freedom of Information Reform Act states that “each agency shall promulgate regulations ... specifying the schedule of fees applicable to the processing of [FOIA] requests_” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(i). This the Commission has done. As it…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. National Security Archive v. U.S. Department of DefenseCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1989
  3. Busby School of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1985
  4. Alvarez v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API