Back 

Blog

THE NCSL BLOG

09

By Lisa Soronen

The majority of the cases the Supreme Court accepts involve circuit splits where federal courts have ruled differently on the exact same issue. Circuit splits arise in cases important and mundane and involve issues big and small. T-Mobile South v. City of Roswell is one of those cases on a narrow issue that won’t attract much attention outside of those directly affected: here state and local government and telecom.

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether a letter denying a cell tower construction application that doesn’t explain the reasons for the denial meets the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) “in writing” requirement. 

T-Mobile applied to construct a 108-foot cell tower in an area zoned single-family residential. The City of Roswell’s ordinance only allowed “alternative tower structures” in such a zone that were compatible with “the natural setting and surrounding structures.” T-Mobile proposed an “alternative tower structure” in the shape of a man-made tree that would be about 25-feet taller than the pine trees surrounding it. 

After a hearing, where city councilmembers stated various reasons for why they were going to vote against the application, Roswell sent T-Mobile a brief letter saying the application was denied and that T-Mobile could obtain hearing minutes from the city clerk. 

The TCA requires that a state or local government's decision denying a cell tower construction permit be “in writing.” The district court and other circuit courts have held that the TCA requires a written decision and a written record that explain why the city council’s majority rejected the application.

 The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, relying on a plain reading of the statute. The TCA doesn’t say that “the decision [must] be ‘in a separate writing’ or in a ‘writing separate from the transcript of the hearing and the minutes of the meeting in which the hearing was held’ or ‘in a single writing that itself contains all of the grounds and explanations for the decision.’ ”

The impact of T-Mobile South v. City of Roswell should not necessarily be underestimated. First, the remedy for failing to meet the “in writing” requirement isn’t a do over—it is a granting of the permit. Second, meeting the “in writing” requirement as T-Mobile would have it might be harder than you think. Particularly in a small town, the person preparing the denial likely will not be a sophisticated telecom lawyer who understands the intricacies of the Telecommunications Act.      

The State and Local Legal Center will file an amicus brief in this case supporting Roswell.

Lisa Soronen is executive director of the State and Local Legal Center. She writes frequently on U.S. Supreme Court cases for the NCSL Blog.

 

Posted in: Public Policy
Actions: E-mail | Permalink |

Subscribe to the NCSL Blog

Click on the RSS feed at left to add the NCSL Blog to your favorite RSS reader. 

Blog Archives | By Category

About the NCSL Blog

This blog offers updates on the National Conference of State Legislatures' research and training, the latest on federalism and the state legislative institution, and posts about state legislators and legislative staff. The blog is edited by NCSL staff and written primarily by NCSL's experts on public policy and the state legislative institution.

NAVIGATE

Share this: 
New Members Welcome
Fall Forum 2014
We are the nation's most respected bipartisan organization providing states support, ideas, connections and a strong voice on Capitol Hill.

NCSL Member Toolbox

Denver

7700 East First Place
Denver, CO 80230
Tel: 303-364-7700 | Fax: 303-364-7800

Washington

444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515
Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel: 202-624-5400 | Fax: 202-737-1069

Copyright 2014 by National Conference of State Legislatures