City of Portland v. United States

• Citation: 969 F.3d 1020
• Decision Date: 12 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-70144, No. 19-70145, No. 19-70123, No. 19-70124, No. 19-70326, No. 19-70341,No. 18-72689, No. 19-70490, No. 19-70136, No. 19-70125, No. 19-70147, No. 19-70146, No. 19-70344, No. 19-70339,18-72689
• Parties: 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, Massachusetts ; City of Chicago, Illinois; Clark County, Nevada; City of College Park, Maryland; City of Dallas, Texas; District of Columbia; City of Gaithersburg, Maryland ; Howard County, Maryland; City of Lincoln, Nebraska; Montgomery County, Maryland; City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina ; City of Omaha, Nebraska ; City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; City of Rye, New York ; City of Scarsdale, New York; City of Seat Pleasant, Maryland; City of Takoma Park, Maryland; Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues; Meridian Township, Michigan; Bloomfield Township, Michigan; Michigan Townships Association ; Michigan Coalition To Protect Public Rights-of-way, Petitioners, 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 Eugene, Oregon; City of Huntsville, Alabama; City of Bowie, Maryland, Petitioners, 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.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

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,...