A major telecom regulatory dispute reached the Supreme Court but was not heard.
AT&T Inc. 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 major telecom regulatory dispute reached the Supreme Court but was not heard.
Why it matters
The Supreme Court denied AT&T Inc.'s petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the United States 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's judgment and send the cases back with instructions to dismiss them as moot. The Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh did not participate in the decision.
Who it affects
This procedural outcome primarily affected AT&T Inc. and the Federal Communications Commission, as well as other parties involved in the underlying D.C. Circuit cases. Telecommunications companies and others subject to FCC regulation may have had an interest in whether the lower court's ruling would be reviewed or vacated.
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
AT&T Inc. asked the Supreme Court to review a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit involving the Federal Communications Commission. The Supreme Court declined to take up the case, meaning the D.C. Circuit's decision remained in place without the Supreme Court weighing in on the merits. Three justices, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, disagreed with simply leaving the denial at that. They would have granted the petition, but their stated purpose was not to decide the underlying dispute. Instead, they would have vacated the D.C. Circuit's judgment and ordered that court to dismiss the cases as moot. This approach follows a legal practice outlined in a 1950 case called United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., which addresses how courts should handle cases that have become moot while on appeal. The Munsingwear procedure is used when a case is no longer a live controversy, typically because circumstances changed after the lower court ruled. Under that doctrine, vacating the lower court decision clears it from the books so it does not have undue precedential influence on future cases. The three dissenting justices apparently believed the cases had become moot and that the proper remedy was to wipe the D.C. Circuit's judgment rather than simply deny review and leave it standing. The Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh took no part in considering or deciding the petition, so the court's effective composition on this matter was reduced. The denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits and does not signal the court's agreement or disagreement with the D.C. Circuit's underlying decision.
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 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.