Opinion ID: 868666
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenges to the Regulation

Text: The Hobbs Act provides that the courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of FCC orders. 28 U.S.C. § 2342 (2006) (The court of appeals . . . has exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of (1) all final orders of the Federal Communications Commission made reviewable by section 402(a) of title 47[.]); 47 -8- U.S.C. § 402(a) (2006) (Any proceeding to enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend any order of the Commission under this chapter (except those appealable under subsection (b) of this section) shall be brought as provided by and in the manner prescribed in chapter 158 of Title 28.). A party challenging an FCC regulation as ultra vires must first petition the agency itself and, if denied, appeal the agency's disposition directly to the Court of Appeals as provided by the statute. FCC v. ITT World Commc'ns, Inc., 466 U.S. 463, 468 (1984). [T]he procedural path designed by Congress serves a number of valid goals: It promotes judicial efficiency, vests an appellate panel rather than a single district judge with the power of agency review, and allows 'uniform, nationwide interpretation of the federal statute by the centralized expert agency created by Congress' to enforce the TCPA. CE Design, Ltd. v. Prism Bus. Media, Inc., 606 F.3d 443, 450 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting N.Y. Co. v. N.Y Dep't of Labor, 440 U.S. 519, 528 (1979) (plurality opinion)). Here, there was no administrative proceeding because the plaintiff filed a private action. In response, the defendant pursued summary judgment and has not yet elected to seek a stay of litigation to pursue administrative remedies through the FCC. However, [w]here the practical effect of a successful attack on the enforcement of an order involves a determination of its validity, such as a defense that a private enforcement action is based upon an invalid agency order, the statutory procedure for review provided by Congress remains applicable. Sw. Bell Tel. v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 738 F.2d 901, 906 (8th Cir. 1984), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 476 U.S. 1167 (1986). To hold otherwise merely because the issue has arisen in private litigation would permit an end-run around the administrative review mandated by the Hobbs Act. Such an end run could result in a judicial determination of a regulation's invalidity without participation by the agency and upon a record not developed by the agency. The Seventh Circuit has confronted this issue and agrees that it makes no difference if the question of validity arises in a suit between two private parties -9- because the Hobbs Act's jurisdictional limitations are 'equally applicable whether [a litigant] wants to challenge the rule directly . . . or indirectly.' CE Design, 606 F.3d at 448 (quoting City of Peoria v. Gen. Elec. Cablevision Corp (GECCO), 690 F.2d 116, 120 (7th Cir. 1982)). Finally, although not in the context of a private action, we have held clearly that [a] defensive attack on the FCC regulations is as much an evasion of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals as is a preemptive strike by seeking an injunction. United States v. Any & All Radio Station Transmission Equip., 207 F.3d 458, 463 (8th Cir. 2000). We hold, therefore, that the Hobbs Act generally precludes our court from holding the contested regulation invalid outside the statutory procedure mandated by Congress.2