As reported earlier today, the Supreme Court granted the Petition for Certiorari in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., No. 17-1705, 2018 WL 3127423 (U.S. Nov. 13, 2018) to consider the following legal question:
Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the FCC’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Based on how the Court framed the question, it looks like it’s headed to decide issues that will have a significant impact on the legal framework under which lower courts apply administrative decisions by the FCC. But the case will undoubtedly have far broader implications since the Hobbs Act reaches more than just administrative rulings by the FCC. Could it even pave the way for the Supreme Court to revisit Chevron Deference? We explore this, and more, below.
The Background
The Petition arises from a TCPA junk fax class action in which Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. sued PDR Network, LLC for sending a single fax offering a free Physicians’ Desk Reference. Carlton claimed the fax violated the TCPA because it was an “unsolicited advertisement” sent without its consent. The District Court dismissed the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) finding that the fax was not an “unsolicited advertisement” under the TCPA because the fax did not have a “commercial aim”. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network, LLC, No. CV 3:15-14887, 2016 WL 5799301, at *3 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 30, 2016).
Plaintiff urged the court to follow a 2006 FCC ruling in which the Commission concluded that “facsimile messages that promote goods or services even at no cost, such as free magazine subscriptions, catalogs, or free consultations or seminars, are unsolicited advertisements under the TCPA’s definition.” But the court found that it was not bound to follow the FCC’s 2006 ruling under the Hobbs Act because the Act only prohibited parties from challenging the validity of an FCC interpretation, and no such challenge was being made in the case. It also found that it was not required to automatically defer to the FCC’s interpretation under the Supreme Court’s Chevron Deference doctrine because the statutory definition of “unsolicited advertisement” was “clear and easy to apply.” Id. at *4.
These issues propelled the case up to the Fourth Circuit, which reversed the District Court. In a divided opinion, the Fourth Circuit held that the District Court was required to follow the FCC’s 2006 ruling under the Hobbs Act because the Act “stripped” the court of jurisdiction to consider the validity of the ruling. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network, LLC, 883 F.3d 459, 464 (4th Cir. 2018). And in reaching this holding, the Fourth Circuit found that the District Court’s decision not to follow the FCC’s ruling meant it was considering the “validity” of the ruling, which it did not have the jurisdiction to do under the Hobbs Act.
PDR Network then petitioned the Supreme Court to review the following questions: (1) whether the Hobbs Act strips courts of jurisdiction to engage in a Chevron analysis and...
