Ctia the Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley
Decision Date | 02 July 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 16-15141,16-15141 |
Citation | 928 F.3d 832 |
Parties | CTIA - THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA; Christine Daniel, City Manager of Berkeley, California, in her official capacity, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
A City of Berkeley ordinance requires cell phone retailers to inform prospective cell phone purchasers that carrying a cell phone in certain ways may cause them to exceed Federal Communications Commission guidelines for exposure to radio-frequency radiation. CTIA, a trade association formerly known as Cellular Telephone Industries Association, challenges the ordinance on two grounds. First, it argues that the ordinance violates the First Amendment. Second, it argues that the ordinance is preempted.
CTIA requested a preliminary injunction staying enforcement of the ordinance. The district court denied CTIA's request, and CTIA filed an interlocutory appeal. We affirmed the district court in a published opinion. See CTIA–The Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley , 854 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2017) (" CTIA "). CTIA then filed a petition for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated our opinion, and remanded for further consideration in light of its decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 201 L.Ed.2d 835 (2018) (" NIFLA "). CTIA–The Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2708, 201 L.Ed.2d 1092 (2018) (mem.).
Following remand, our three-judge panel requested supplemental briefing from the parties regarding the effect of NIFLA on CTIA's First Amendment claims. We waited for an en banc panel of our court to address a similar issue in a separate case. In American Beverage Ass'n v. City and County of San Francisco , 916 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (" American Beverage "), the en banc panel "reaffirm[ed] our reasoning and conclusion in CTIA that [ Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel , 471 U.S. 626, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 85 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985) ] provides the appropriate framework to analyze a First Amendment claim involving compelled commercial speech." Id . at 756. In light of our en banc decision in American Beverage , and having considered the parties’ supplemental briefing on NIFLA , we again affirm the district court's decision. Our amended opinion addresses NIFLA 's clarification of the Zauderer framework. See Section IV.A.1, infra .
In May 2015, the City of Berkeley passed an ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to disclose information to prospective cell phone purchasers about the federal government's radio-frequency radiation exposure guidelines relevant to cell phone use. Under "Findings and Purpose," the ordinance provided:
Berkeley Mun. Code § 9.96.010 (2015).
CTIA challenged the compelled disclosure provision of the ordinance, arguing that it violated the First Amendment and was preempted. One sentence of the compelled disclosure stated, "The potential risk is greater for children." The district court held that this sentence was preempted, and it issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance. In December 2015, Berkeley re-passed the ordinance without the offending sentence. In its current form, the compelled disclosure provision provides:
Berkeley Mun. Code § 9.96.030(A) (2015).
The ordinance requires that the compelled disclosure be provided either on a prominently displayed poster no less than 8½ by 11 inches with no smaller than 28-point font, or on a handout no less than 5 by 8 inches with no smaller than 18-point font. The logo of the City of Berkeley must be placed on the poster and handout. The ordinance provides that a cell phone retailer may include additional information on the poster or handout if it is clear that the additional information is not part of the compelled disclosure. § 9.96.030(B) ().
CTIA challenged the current ordinance, arguing, as it had before, that the ordinance violates the First Amendment and is preempted. The district court noted that the preempted sentence had been removed from the ordinance, dissolved its previously entered injunction, and denied CTIA's request for a new preliminary injunction. CTIA filed an interlocutory appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. We review a denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc'y , 725 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2013). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence." Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber , 767 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We will not reverse the district court where it "got the law right," even if we "would have arrived at a different result," so long as the district court did not clearly err in its factual determinations. Lands Council v. McNair , 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
The Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") has regulatory jurisdiction over transmitting services in the United States. In 1996, after extensive consultation with other agencies, the FCC issued a rule designed to limit the Specific Absorption Rate ("SAR") of radio-frequency ("RF") radiation from FCC-regulated transmitters, including cell phones:
In re Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radio-frequency Radiation, 61 Fed. Reg. 41006, 41006–07 (Aug. 7, 1996) (emphases added).
Out of concern for the safety of cell phone users, the FCC rejected an industry proposal to exclude "low-power devices" such as cell phones from the rule adopting SAR limits:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
GEO Grp., Inc. v. Newsom
...extent that it is reasonable to conclude that Congress left no room for state regulation in that field." CTIA – Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley , 928 F.3d 832, 849 (9th Cir. 2019). GEO contends that A.B. 32 is preempted under the second category (conflict preemption), see GEO Compl. ¶¶ 1......
-
Baptiste v. Kennealy
...5.03(2) may not survive rational basis review. See Hurley, 515 U.S. at 573-74, 115 S.Ct. 2338 ; but see CTIA - The Wireless Assoc. v. City of Berkeley, 928 F.3d 832, 843 (9th Cir. 2019).19 Even if Zauderer did not apply, the first and third required paragraphs would also likely survive inte......
-
Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Becerra
...as long as the compelled disclosure is ‘reasonably related’ to a substantial governmental interest." CTIA—The Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley, Cal. , 928 F.3d 832, 845 (9th Cir.), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 658, 205 L.Ed.2d 387 (2019) (quoting 471 U.S. 626, 651, 105 S.Ct. 2......
-
Pac. Coast Horseshoeing Sch., Inc. v. Kirchmeyer
...2017). However, intermediate scrutiny may apply to content-based restrictions on commercial speech. See CTIA – The Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley , 928 F.3d 832, 842 (9th Cir. 2019) (explaining that "one size does not fit all in commercial speech cases" and contrasting Central Hudson Ga......
-
THE DISEMBODIED FIRST AMENDMENT.
...overruled in part by Am. Meat Inst., 760 F.3d 18. (30.) Am. Meat Inst., 760 F.3d 18. (31.) CTIA-The Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley, 928 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2019) (upholding against a First Amendment challenge a city ordinance requiring retailers to inform potential cell phone customers t......
-
RECLAIMING ACCESS TO TRUTH IN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE AFTER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY & LIFE ADVOCATES V. BECERRA.
...Ass'n of Am. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 315 F. Supp. 3d 143, 189 (D.D.C. 2018). (30.) CTIA-The Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley, 928 F.3d 832,852 (9th Cir. (31.) See Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 884 (1992) (upholding informed consent requirement for physician......
-
Can Climate Change Labels Be 'Purely Factual and Uncontroversial'?
...CTIA-he Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, Cal., 138 S. Ct. 2708 (2018), af’d sub nom . CTIA-he Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, Cal., 928 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2019) ( CTIA III ), cert. denied , 140 S. Ct. 658 (2019). 19. CTIA I , 158 F. Supp. 3d at 904 (rejecting the D.C. Circuit and not......
-
Governing the Gasoline Spigot: Gas Stations and the Transition Away From Gasoline
...279. 556 F.3d 950, 965-67 (9th Cir. 2009), af’d sub nom . Brown v. Entertainment Merchs. Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (2011). 280. Id . 281. 928 F.3d 832, 844 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied , 140 S. Ct. 658 (2019). 282. See , e.g. , U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases , https://www.epa.gov/ ghgemi......