Case Law City of Portland v. United States

City of Portland v. United States

Document Cited Authorities (42) Cited in (35) Related (2)

969 F.3d 1020

CITY OF PORTLAND, Petitioner,

v.UNITED STATES of America; Federal Communications Commission, Respondents,City and County of San Francisco; City of Arcadia; City of Bellevue; City of Brookhaven; City of Burien; City of Burlingame; City of Chicago; City of Culver City; City of Dubuque; City of Gig Harbor; City of Kirkland; City of Las Vegas; City of Lincoln; City of Monterey; City of Philadelphia; City of Piedmont; City of Plano; City of San Bruno; City of San Jacinto; City of San Jose; City of Santa Monica; City of Shafter; County of Los Angeles; Howard County; Michigan Municipal League; CTIA - The Wireless Association ; Town of Fairfax; Town of Hillsborough, Intervenors.

American Electric Power Service Corporation; CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC; Duke Energy Corporation; Entergy Corporation; Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC; Southern Company; Tampa Electric Company; Virginia Electric and Power Company; Xcel Energy Services Inc., Petitioners,

v.Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,Verizon; US Telecom—The Broadband Association, Respondents-Intervenors.

Sprint Corporation, Petitioner,

v.Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,

City of Bowie, Maryland; City of Eugene, Oregon; City of Huntsville, Alabama; City of Westminster, Maryland ; County of Marin, California ; City of Arcadia, California; Culver City, California; City of Bellevue, California; City of Burien, Washington ; City of Burlingame, California ; City of Gig Harbor, Washington ; City of Issaquah, Washington ; City of Kirkland, Washington ; City of Las Vegas, Nevada ; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California ; City of Piedmont, California ; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California ; City of Yuma, Arizona ;

County of Los Angeles, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of New York, New York, Intervenors.

Verizon Communications, Inc., Petitioner,

v.Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, California; City of Burien, Washington ; City of Burlingame, California ; City of Gig Harbor, Washington ; City of Issaquah, Washington ; City of Kirkland, Washington ; City of Las Vegas, Nevada ; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California ; City of Piedmont, California ; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California ; City of Yuma, Arizona ; County of Los Angeles, California; Culver City, California; City of New York, New York; Town of Fairfax, California, Intervenors.

Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc., Petitioner,

v.Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, California; City of Burien, Washington ; City of Burlingame, California ; City of Gig Harbor, Washington ; City of Issaquah, Washington ; City of Kirkland, Washington ; City of Las Vegas, Nevada ; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California ; City of Piedmont, California ; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California ; City of Yuma, Arizona ; County of Los Angeles, California; Culver City, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of New York, New York, Intervenors.

City of Seattle, Washington; City of Tacoma, Washington ; King County, Washington; League of Oregon Cities; League of California Cities; League of Arizona Cities and Towns, Petitioners,

v.Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,City of Bakersfield, California ; City of Coconut Creek, Florida; City of Lacey, Washington ; City of Olympia, Washington ; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California; City of Tumwater, Washington ; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance; Rainier Communications Commission; County of Thurston, Washington; City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, Washington; City of Burien, Washington ; City of Burlingame, California ; City of Gig Harbor, Washington ; City of Issaquah, Washington ; City of Kirkland, Washington ; City of Las Vegas, Nevada ; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California ; City of Piedmont, California ; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California ; City of Yuma, Arizona ; County of Los Angeles, California; Culver City, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of New York, New York, Intervenors.

City of San Jose, California; City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, Washington; City of Burien, Washington ; City of Burlingame, California ; Culver City, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington ; City of Issaquah, Washington ; City of Kirkland, Washington ; City of Las Vegas, Nevada ; City of Los Angeles, California; County of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California ; City of Piedmont, California ; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of Shafter, California ; City of Yuma, Arizona, Petitioners,

v.Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,Ctia - The Wireless Association ; Competitive Carriers Association; Sprint Corporation; Verizon Communications, Inc.; City of New York, New York; Wireless Infrastructure Association, Intervenors.

City and County of San Francisco, Petitioner,

v.Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents.

City of Huntington Beach, Petitioner,

v.Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, Washington; City of Burien, Washington ; City of Burlingame, California ; City of Gig Harbor, Washington ; City of Issaquah, Washington ; City of Kirkland, Washington ; City of Las Vegas, Nevada ; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California ; City of Piedmont, California ; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California ; City of Yuma, Arizona ; County of Los Angeles, California; Culver City, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of New York, New York, Intervenors.

Montgomery County, Maryland, Petitioner,

v.Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents.

AT&T Services, Inc., Petitioner,

v.Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,City of Baltimore, Maryland ; City and County of San Francisco, California ; Michigan Municipal League; City of Albuquerque, New Mexico ; National League of Cities; City of Bakersfield, California ; Town of Ocean City, Maryland; City of Brookhaven, Georgia; City of Coconut Creek, Florida; City of Dubuque, Iowa ; City of Emeryville, California; City of Fresno, California; City of La Vista, Nebraska ; City of Lacey, Washington ; City of Medina, Washington; City of Olympia, Washington ; City of Papillion, Nebraska ; City of Plano, Texas ; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California; City of Rockville, Maryland; City of San Bruno, California; City of Santa Monica, California ; City of Sugarland, Texas ; City of Tumwater, Washington ; City of Westminster, Maryland ; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance; Contra Costa County, California ; County of Marin, California ; International City/County Management Association ; International Municipal Lawyers Association; League of Nebraska Municipalities; National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors; Rainier Communications Commission; Thurston County, Washington ; Town of Corte Madera, California ; Town of Hillsborough, California ; Town of Yarrow Point, Washington; City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, Washington; City of Burien, Washington ; City of Burlingame, California ; City of Culver City , California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington ; City of Issaquah, Washington ; City of Kirkland, Washington ; City of Las Vegas, Nevada ; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California ; City of Piedmont, California ; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California ; City of Yuma, Arizona ; County of Los Angeles, California; Town of Fairfax, California, Intervenors.

American Public Power Association, Petitioner,

v.Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,City of Albuquerque, New Mexico ; National League of Cities; City of Brookhaven, Georgia; City of Baltimore, Maryland ; City of Dubuque, Iowa ; Town of Ocean City, Maryland; City of Emeryville, California; Michigan Municipal League; Town of Hillsborough, California ; City of La Vista, Nebraska ; City of Medina, Washington; City of Papillion, Nebraska ; City of Plano, Texas ; City of Rockville, Maryland; City of San Bruno, California; City of Santa Monica, California ; City of Sugarland, Texas ; League of Nebraska Municipalities; National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors; City of Bakersfield, California ; City of Fresno, California; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California; City of Coconut Creek, Florida; City of Lacey, Washington ; City of Olympia, Washington ; City of Tumwater, Washington ; Town of Yarrow Point, Washington; Thurston County, Washington ; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance; Rainier Communications Commission; City and County of San Francisco, California ; County of Marin, California ; Contra Costa County, California ; Town of Corte Madera, California ; City of Westminster, Maryland, Intervenors.

City of Austin, Texas; City of Ann Arbor, Michigan ; County of Anne Arundel, Maryland; City of Atlanta, Georgia; City of Boston,...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii – 2021
Hueter v. AST Telecomm LLC
"...new process, called one-touch make-ready, that allows new attachers themselves to do all the preparations. City of Portland v. United States , 969 F.3d 1020, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal citation omitted). Although the One-Touch Make-Ready Order enables telecommunications carriers to p..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit – 2021
CDK Global LLC v. Brnovich
"...dealer data access to an authorized integrator." Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 28-4651(5), 28-4653(A)(3)(a) ; see City of Portland v. United States , 969 F.3d 1020, 1049 (9th Cir. 2020) (A regulation that "allows for the recovery of actual costs ... does not constitute a regulatory taking."). Se..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit – 2024
de Puerto Rico v. Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. (In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R.)
"...873 (N.D. Ill. 2019); cf. Nat'l League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 96 S.Ct. 2465, 49 L.Ed.2d 245 (1976); City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020); N.C. Comm'n of Indian Affs. v. U.S. Dep't of Lab., 725 F.2d 238 (4th Cir. 1984). While not all of these cases bear..."
Document | – 2021
In re Arambula-Bravo
"... ... unlawfully transporting noncitizens into the United States in ... violation of sections 274(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(II) of ... See ... City of Portland v. United States , 969 F.3d 1020, 1038 ... (9th Cir ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit – 2022
Allen v. Santa Clara Cnty. Corr. Peace Officers Ass'n
"...encompasses the City's ability as owner to enter into private commercial relationships."); see also City of Portland v. United States , 969 F.3d 1020, 1045 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that city did not act in proprietary capacity when the action "serve[d] a public purpose, and ... regulated..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
3 books and journal articles
Document | Appendix A Table of Authorities
APPENDIX A: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
"...P.2d 811 (1946).................................................................................10-40 City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020)...............................................................................................6-9 City of Rancho Palos Verde..."
Document | 6 Regulation of Specific Uses and Subjects
6.8. ANTENNAS.
"...52.5-foot antenna for commercial purposes in violation of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996) City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020) (overturning FCC regulation provisions dealing with the authority of local governments in the area of aesthetic regulations)..."
Document | 2022 Annual Review of Antitrust Law Developments – 2023
Chapter XIII General Exemptions and Immunities
"...Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088 (2018), vacated in part City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020), denied sub nom. City of Portland, Or. v. FCC, 141 S. Ct. 2855 (2021); Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removi..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
2 firm's commentaries
Document | Mondaq United States – 2022
Takeoff Of 5G Service Delayed Near Some U.S. Airports
"...that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any entity from providing telecommunications services. See City of Portland v. U.S., 969 F.3d 1020, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020). While the dispute between commercial airlines and the telecom industry continues, FMG will continue to monitor the develo..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2022
Takeoff Of 5G Service Delayed Near Some U.S. Airports
"...that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any entity from providing telecommunications services. See City of Portland v. U.S., 969 F.3d 1020, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020). While the dispute between commercial airlines and the telecom industry continues, FMG will continue to monitor the develo..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 books and journal articles
Document | Appendix A Table of Authorities
APPENDIX A: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
"...P.2d 811 (1946).................................................................................10-40 City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020)...............................................................................................6-9 City of Rancho Palos Verde..."
Document | 6 Regulation of Specific Uses and Subjects
6.8. ANTENNAS.
"...52.5-foot antenna for commercial purposes in violation of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996) City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020) (overturning FCC regulation provisions dealing with the authority of local governments in the area of aesthetic regulations)..."
Document | 2022 Annual Review of Antitrust Law Developments – 2023
Chapter XIII General Exemptions and Immunities
"...Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088 (2018), vacated in part City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020), denied sub nom. City of Portland, Or. v. FCC, 141 S. Ct. 2855 (2021); Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removi..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii – 2021
Hueter v. AST Telecomm LLC
"...new process, called one-touch make-ready, that allows new attachers themselves to do all the preparations. City of Portland v. United States , 969 F.3d 1020, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal citation omitted). Although the One-Touch Make-Ready Order enables telecommunications carriers to p..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit – 2021
CDK Global LLC v. Brnovich
"...dealer data access to an authorized integrator." Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 28-4651(5), 28-4653(A)(3)(a) ; see City of Portland v. United States , 969 F.3d 1020, 1049 (9th Cir. 2020) (A regulation that "allows for the recovery of actual costs ... does not constitute a regulatory taking."). Se..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit – 2024
de Puerto Rico v. Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. (In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R.)
"...873 (N.D. Ill. 2019); cf. Nat'l League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 96 S.Ct. 2465, 49 L.Ed.2d 245 (1976); City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020); N.C. Comm'n of Indian Affs. v. U.S. Dep't of Lab., 725 F.2d 238 (4th Cir. 1984). While not all of these cases bear..."
Document | – 2021
In re Arambula-Bravo
"... ... unlawfully transporting noncitizens into the United States in ... violation of sections 274(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(II) of ... See ... City of Portland v. United States , 969 F.3d 1020, 1038 ... (9th Cir ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit – 2022
Allen v. Santa Clara Cnty. Corr. Peace Officers Ass'n
"...encompasses the City's ability as owner to enter into private commercial relationships."); see also City of Portland v. United States , 969 F.3d 1020, 1045 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that city did not act in proprietary capacity when the action "serve[d] a public purpose, and ... regulated..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 firm's commentaries
Document | Mondaq United States – 2022
Takeoff Of 5G Service Delayed Near Some U.S. Airports
"...that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any entity from providing telecommunications services. See City of Portland v. U.S., 969 F.3d 1020, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020). While the dispute between commercial airlines and the telecom industry continues, FMG will continue to monitor the develo..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2022
Takeoff Of 5G Service Delayed Near Some U.S. Airports
"...that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any entity from providing telecommunications services. See City of Portland v. U.S., 969 F.3d 1020, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020). While the dispute between commercial airlines and the telecom industry continues, FMG will continue to monitor the develo..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.