The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the premise that federal courts must defer to the Federal Communications Commission related to orders under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Why it matters: The ruling in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. significantly weakens the FCC’s authority over TCPA interpretation in civil enforcement proceedings, giving district courts the power to apply their own statutory interpretation, even if it conflicts with FCC orders.
The background: The case stems from a 2014 class-action lawsuit filed by a chiropractic clinic alleging that McKesson Corp. sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the TCPA. The clinic aimed to represent a class that included recipients of both traditional and online faxes.
While the case was pending, the FCC issued its 2019 Amerifactors order, which interpreted “telephone facsimile machine” under the TCPA to exclude online fax services. The district court, following Ninth Circuit precedent, treated the FCC’s order as binding and decertified the class — leaving only 12 faxes in question and limiting potential damages to $6,000. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
The ruling: In a 6–3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not strip district courts of their ability to interpret the TCPA independently of the FCC in enforcement proceedings.
“The District Court is not bound by the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA. The District Court should interpret the statute as courts traditionally do under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation,” wrote Justice Kavanaugh for the majority.
The justices made several key points:
- The Hobbs Act grants courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of FCC orders, but that does not prevent district courts from applying different interpretations in enforcement contexts.
- Other statutes like the Clean Air Act contain explicit bars on judicial review in enforcement proceedings. The Hobbs Act does not. Congress could have, but did not, include similar language.
- The majority emphasized the default rule under administrative law: courts should presume judicial review is available unless Congress clearly says otherwise.
- Requiring all affected parties to predict future enforcement and challenge FCC rules within 60 days would be, in the Court’s words, “highly unusual—and would rightly strike many affected parties as grossly unfair”.
The case has been remanded, and the district court will now determine whether the FCC’s interpretation of “telephone facsimile machine” aligns with the TCPA. Going forward, parties in TCPA lawsuits may have new arguments for challenging FCC interpretations at the trial court level.
The dissent, led by Justice Kagan, warned that the ruling may embolden regulated entities to ignore FCC rules and wait to challenge them if and when they are sued, arguing the majority had adopted a “ship first, litigate later” model that undermines the Hobbs Act’s structure and goals.
