A wireless industry appeal was turned away, with three justices dissenting.
Ctia-The Wireless Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
Status and record
Your position
Do you support the Court's decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
A wireless industry appeal was turned away, with three justices dissenting.
Why it matters
In Ctia-The Wireless Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 139 S. Ct. 454, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning it declined to hear the case that had come from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Three justices, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, would have granted the petition but only to vacate the lower court judgment and send the case back with instructions to dismiss it as moot. The Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh did not participate in the decision.
Who it affects
The wireless communications industry and the Federal Communications Commission are the direct parties affected. The denial of review leaves the D.C. Circuit's decision in place, though the source text does not describe what that decision required of either party.
Decision status
Current
Decision issued Nov 5, 2018
Published opinion
Next
Binding on lower courts
Congress can respond with legislation; the Court can revisit in a later case.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Supreme Court
Decision issued
Nov 5, 2018 · Published opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
The case arrived at the Supreme Court after proceedings in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The wireless industry association sought Supreme Court review of that lower court's decision by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is a formal request asking the Court to take up the case. The Supreme Court declined to grant that petition, which is the most common outcome when cases are brought to the Court. A denial of certiorari does not mean the Court agreed or disagreed with the lower court on the merits. It simply means the Court chose not to review the case at this time. Three justices, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, stated they would have handled the matter differently. Rather than leaving the lower court ruling fully in place, they would have vacated it and sent the case back to the D.C. Circuit with instructions to dismiss it as moot. They cited the legal principle from United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. (1950), which holds that when a case becomes moot while on appeal, the proper remedy is generally to wipe the lower court judgment off the books so it does not set harmful precedent. The Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition, so the effective participating court was smaller than usual. The source text does not explain the underlying subject matter of the dispute or the specific ruling the D.C. Circuit had issued, so the precise legal question at stake cannot be described further based on the available text.
CITATION AND RECORD
139 S. Ct. 454
Record source: CourtListener
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied. Justice THOMAS, Justice ALITO, and Justice GORSUCH would grant the petition, vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and remand to that court with instructions to dismiss the cases as moot. See *455 United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950). THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Justice KAVANAUGH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
- 139 S. Ct. 454Citation · CourtListener
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.