969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020), 18-72689, City Of Portland v. United States

Docket Nº:18-72689, 19-70490, 19-70123, 19-70124, 19-70125, 19-70136, 19-70144, 19-70145, 19-70146, 19-70147, 19-70326, 19-70339, 19-70341, 19-70344.
Citation:969 F.3d 1020
Opinion Judge:SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge.
Party Name: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; ...
Attorney:Petitioners/Intervenors Joseph Van Eaton (argued) and John Gasparini, Best Best & Krieger LLP, Washington, D.C.; Gail A. Karish, Best Best & Krieger LLP, Los Angeles, California; Michael J. Watza, Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook, Detroit, Michigan; for Petitioners/Intervenors Cities o...
Judge Panel:Partial Dissent by Judge Bress BRESS, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part:
Case Date:August 12, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Page 1020

969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020)

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; U.S. 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
...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP