PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc.,
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 20, 2019 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- June 20, 2019
- Term
- October Term 2018
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns two federal statutes, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (Telephone Act) and the Administrative Orders Review Act (Hobbs Act). The first statute generally makes it unlawful for any person to send an "unsolicited advertisement" by fax. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C). The second statute provides that the federal courts of appeals have "exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of" certain "final orders of the Federal Communication Commission." 28 U.S.C. § 2342(1). In 2006, the FCC issued an Order stating that the term "unsolicited advertisement" in the Telephone Act includes certain faxes that "promote goods or services even at no cost," including "free magazine subscriptions" and "catalogs." 21 FCC Rcd. 3787, 3814. The question here is whether the Hobbs Act's vesting of "exclusive jurisdiction" in the courts of appeals to "enjoin, set aside, suspend," or "determine the validity" of FCC "final orders" means that a district court must adopt, and consequently follow, the FCC's Order interpreting the term "unsolicited advertisement" as including certain faxes that promote "free" goods. We have found it difficult to answer this question, for the answer may depend upon the resolution of two preliminary issues. We therefore vacate the judgment of…
Excerpt of a 50,049-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.