Document: 480 U.S. 245 107 S.Ct. 1107 94 L.Ed.2d 282 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Appellants,v.FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION al. GROUP W CABLE, INC., Appellants, v. FLORIDA Nos. 85-1658, 85-1660. Argued Dec. 3, 1986. Decided Feb. 25, 1987. Syllabus The Pole Attachments Act (Act) empowers the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in absence of parallel state regulation, to determine "just and reasonable" rates that utility companies may charge cable television systems for using poles as physical medium stringing (47 U.S.C. § 224(b)(1)). Act, effect, also provides a range reasonableness within which FCC set when it indicates minimum reasonable rate is equivalent marginal cost providing pole attachments, while maximum determined by computing fully allocated construction operation each attached 224(d)(1)). Upon complaints three operators alleging yearly per-pole attachment rentals charged them appellee Florida Power Corporation—$7.15, $6.24, $5.50, respectively—were unreasonable, FCC's Common Carrier Bureau issued orders reforming agreements provide rents $1.79 per pole. These were upheld FCC, rejected appellee's constitutional arguments under Takings Due Process Clauses. However, on review, Court Appeals held violated Fifth Amendment. court first concluded authorized permanent occupation property constituting se taking compensation must be paid Loretto Tele-prompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 419, 102 3164, 73 868 (1982). then struck down Amendment ground its authorization make initial determinations prescribed standards usurped an exclusively judicial function. Held: 1. does not authorize meaning Pp. 250-254. (a) erred applying narrow rule, since element required acquiescence at heart concept Loretto, whereas nothing interpreted requires give space or prohibits from refusing enter into agreements. Since clearly contemplates voluntary commercial leases rather than forced governmental licensing, merely regulates economic relations company landlords tenants, regulation Loretto. 250-253. (b) order did effect traditional standards, permit chargeable use private devoted public purposes so long are confiscatory. Here, imposed was calculated according Act's formula, confiscatory recovery costs, including actual capital. 253-254 2. Because Amendment, unnecessary review Appeals' holding unconstitutional. P. 254. 772 F.2d 1537, reversed. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. POWELL, filed concurring opinion, O'CONNOR, joined, post, p. ----. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., appellants No. 85-1658. Jay E. Ricks, Allan J. Topol, appellees both cases. Justice MARSHALL 1 cases present consolidated appeals single decision United States Eleventh Circuit 47 224 (the Act) effects unconstitutional without just compensation. 2 * 92 Stat. 35, amended, 224, enacted Congress solution perceived danger anticompetitive practices utilities connection with service. Cable operators, deliver signals their subscribers, have carrier cable; most instances underground installation necessary cables impossible impracticable. Utility provide, such circumstances, virtually only practical cables. Over past 30 years, throughout country entered arrangements leasing systems. contracts generally provided payment rent attached, fixed costs making modifications being borne operators. In many these attachments been subject regulation. 3 response exploiting monopoly position engaging widespread overcharging, fill gap left regulation.1 See S.Rep. 95-580, pp. 12-14 (1977), Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, 109. any operating State regulate rates, terms, conditions seek relief alleged overcharging before Commission, empowered "regulate reasonable. . ." 224(b)(1). establishes standard Commission's determination "a if assures less additional nor more amount multiplying percentage total usable space, duct conduit capacity, occupied sum expenses capital attributable entire pole, duct, conduit, right-of-way." 224(d)(1). 4 1963, Corporation (Florida Power) agreement appellant Cox Cablevision (Cox). subsequently, 1977 1980, contracted similar Teleprompter Southeast, Inc. (Teleprompter), Acton CATV, (Acton), respectively.2 November complaint 1980 $6.24 unreasonable Act. February 1981, concerning agreement, $7.15 July memorandum finding favor Acton, ordering refunds excess after filing complaints.3 application FCC; during pendency this seeking revision 1963 time $5.50 ordered reformation Cox's September 1984 order, approved all raised Clauses, calculations made Bureau. 5 sought Circuit.4 Neither intervenors argued unconstitutional.5 nonetheless curiam 1537 (1985). effected because our F.2d, 1544. authorizes legislatively standards. "By prescribing 'binding rule' regard ascertainment compensation," stated, "Congress has what exclusive function." Id., 1546. 6 intervenor noticed separate decision. We noted probable jurisdiction argument decision, 476 1156, 106 2273, 90 716 (1986). now reverse. II 7 found outset property, which, rule we adopted paid. 1543-1544. disagree premise, find no facts litigation. 8 reviewed New York statute prohibited owner rental "interfer[ing] facilities upon his premises," landlord could access "which [State Television] shall, reasonable." U.S., 423, n. S.Ct., 3169, 3. had purchased apartment building roof mounted switching boxes provision service tenants. Television declared one-time $1 might levied return statutory compulsory property. 424-425, 3169-3170. prior decisions interpreting Clause, along Clause itself, compelled conclusion government interests serve." 426, 3171. reversed challenged take remanded consideration issue whether 9 characterized "very narrow." 441, 3179. broadened beyond scope legitimately applies. For, considered specifically companies, gives right occupy poles, operators.6 who voluntarily tenants renting poles. As observed statutes regulating takings. 440, 3178; see Bowles Willingham, 321 503, 517-518, 64 641, 648-649, 88 L.Ed. 892 (1944); Block Hirsh, 256 135, 157, 41 458, 460, 65 865 (1921); Fresh Pond Shopping Center, Callahan, 464 875, 104 218, 78 215 (1983) (dismissing challenge control ordinance want substantial federal question). "So regulations do require suffer portion third party, they will analyzed multifactor inquiry applicable nonpossessory activity." supra, 3178 (emphasis added). 10 This occupation. said Loretto: 11 "[P]roperty law protected owner's expectation he relatively undisturbed least possession To require, well, another exercise complete dominion literally adds insult injury. Furthermore, qualitatively severe even imposes affirmative duties owner, over timing, extent, nature invasion." 436, 3176 (citation omitted). 12 Appellees contend, essence, tenant invited lease remain regulated $1.79. But invitation, rent, makes difference. line separates unambiguous distinction between lessee interloper license. conclude III 13 remaining question, readily answered. It course settled dispute employment uses constitutionally permissible. Munn Illinois, [4 Otto] 113, 133-134, 24 77 (1877); Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 747, 768-769, 1344, 1360-1361, 20 312 (1968). Such prices "may, consistently Constitution, limit stringently recovered investment, investors' one variables calculus reasonableness." 769, 1361. So confiscatory, bar imposition. St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. States, 298 38, 53, 56 720, 726, 80 1033 (1936); Basin, 770, 14 previously noted, undertake rate-setting. equal "the attachments," "by measure thus attached. 15 evidently reduces contract reduce allowed statute. Tr. Oral Arg. 10. case formula cost. App. Juris. Statement 23a. contended, seriously argued, cost, capital, confiscatory.7 Accordingly, hold regulatory below IV 16 Appeals, void unconstitutionally constrains takings, necessarily falls.8 17 Reversed. 18 whom O'CONNOR joins, concurring. 19 I join Court's write my understanding administrative agency. agree brief discussion "traditional standards," quotes sentence (1968), reasonableness," id., mandated Constitution considerably complex simple statement reflects. Harlan's some 74 pages long. addition, Douglas wrote interesting, relevant, dissenting opinion. included today's way accurately portrays full rationale ratemaking tribunals. Other portions quoted indicate governments far leeway. Indeed, next page identifies relevant Natural Gas reasonable," 1361, goes suggest selected "from broad zone Ibid. A second several Justices carefully role courts should play reviewing FPC Hope Co., 320 591, 281, 333 (1944). Douglas, writing Court, stated equity commensurate returns investments other enterprises having corresponding risks." 603, 288. 21 isolated viewed appropriate today. My point involves careful statute, action commission, factors. us comport Constitution. view purpose served selecting quotation that, standing alone, meaningless best. investigated allegations utilities, but "communications wire radio" 48 1064, 151. California Water Telephone F.C.C.2d 753, 758 (1977). Power's term year, thereafter terminable either party six months' notice. 51/2 substantially lower asked adopt. information Power, requested imposition annual approximately $2.20 Appellants 85-1660, Group Cable, Inc., National Association, Corporation, intervened supporting FCC. Tampa Electric Company, Alabama Arizona Public Service Mississippi Light cases, support Power. opening petition "involve facial attack constitutionality legislative act." Brief Petitioner 84-3683 (CA11), 35. found, contend here, "[t]he hard reality matter desires exclude whatever reason, powerless previous where disconnect, routinely issuing temporary stays prevent exclusion companies." 1543 According Solicitor General, "has yet taken position" terminate non-retaliatory reasons. 7. language explicit authority history strongly suggests intended authorization. See, e.g., U.S.Code 124 (The "does vest system operator bill, reported, power dedicate plant communications use"). decide today (1982), would future objection, into, renew, refrain terminating interpretation case, occasion consider allowable Our disposition takings question merits establish final review.

Category: 3