Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005)
Primary Holding
An individual may not enforce the limitations on local zoning authority set forth in §332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934 through an action under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
In the case of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, the Supreme Court decided that individuals cannot use a specific law (42 U.S.C. §1983) to challenge local government decisions about where to place wireless communication facilities, like cell towers. This matters because it limits the ways consumers can fight against local zoning decisions that might affect their access to wireless services. This case is relevant if you feel that your local government is unfairly blocking the installation of necessary communication infrastructure that could benefit you and your community.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In the case of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, Mark J. Abrams, a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, owned a home situated at a high elevation, which made it an ideal location for radio transmissions. In 1989, he obtained a permit to construct a 52.5-foot antenna for amateur radio use and subsequently installed it. Over the years, Abrams added several smaller tripod antennas without the City’s prior permission. He utilized these antennas for both noncommercial amateur radio services and commercial purposes, including providing two-way radio communications to customers. The dispute arose when Abrams sought permission in 1998 to build a second antenna tower, which the City of Rancho Palos Verdes denied. Abrams contended that the City’s actions were inconsistent with the limitations imposed by §332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, which restricts local governments from unreasonably discriminating against providers of wireless services and from prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Following the denial, Abrams filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming that the City’s actions violated his rights under the federal statute. The case progressed through the courts, eventually reaching the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in favor of Abrams. The City then petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case to determine whether an individual could enforce the limitations on local zoning authority set forth in the Communications Act through a §1983 action. The Supreme Court's decision was announced on March 22, 2005.
Whether an individual may enforce the limitations on local zoning authority set forth in §332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934 through an action under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U.S.C. §1983.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- January 19, 2005
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Scalia
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Federal Communications Commission's determination that cable companies providing broadband Internet service do not qualify as "telecommunications services" under Title II of the Communications Act, and thus are exempt from mandatory common-carrier regulation, is a lawful construction of the Act under the Chevron deference standard.
Orff v. United States, 545 U.S. 596 (2005)
Consumer LostCongress did not waive the United States' sovereign immunity for suits brought by third-party beneficiaries under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, and therefore, individuals who are not parties to a government contract cannot sue the United States for breach of that contract.
San Remo Hotel, L. P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005)
Consumer LostFederal courts cannot create an exception to the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. §1738, for claims brought under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, thereby affirming that state court decisions on takings claims must be respected in federal court.
Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005)
Consumer LostThe "substantially advances" formula established in Agins v. City of Tiburon is not an appropriate test for determining whether government regulation effects a taking under the Fifth Amendment.