T-Mobile West LLC v. The City and County of San Francisco

Background

The case concerned Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, known as the Spectrum Act. The law says that a state or local government must approve an eligible request to modify an existing wireless tower or base station when the modification does not substantially change the facility’s physical dimensions. Federal regulations generally require action within 60 days. The regulations also provide that an application is treated as approved by default if the local government does not timely approve or deny it, subject to specified tolling rules and a written notice from the applicant after the review period expires.

T-Mobile submitted eligible facilities applications to the City and County of San Francisco and the City and County of San Francisco Department of Building Inspection. T-Mobile notified the defendants that multiple applications had been approved by default after the defendants failed to act within the required period. The opinion states that T-Mobile submitted 81 applications in 2020, that 34 were pending when the action was filed, and that defendants had granted 47 applications, including 11 within 60 days.

T-Mobile moved for summary judgment and a preliminary injunction. It asked the court to rule that the defendants had to issue permits for applications approved by default and had to approve pending and future eligible facilities applications within 60 days. T-Mobile also sought an injunction concerning pending applications.

Summary-judgment ruling

The defendants argued that the Spectrum Act violated the Tenth Amendment’s anticommandeering doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents the federal government from ordering states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. The court rejected the argument. It held that Congress could establish requirements governing continued state activity and that the Spectrum Act did not require local governments to enact or repeal regulations.

The defendants also argued that the Spectrum Act did not impose an affirmative duty to issue permits for applications approved by default. The court relied on the statute, its implementing regulations, and the Federal Communications Commission’s explanation of the default-approval process. The court concluded that the process allows qualifying applications to become approved by default when a local government fails to act within the required period.

The court granted in part T-Mobile’s motion for summary judgment. It held that T-Mobile’s applications approved by default were to be treated as granted under the Spectrum Act and that T-Mobile’s installations under those granted applications were and would be treated as legal by the defendants. The court declined to decide whether the defendants were barred from raising their Tenth Amendment argument because of their earlier conduct, finding that issue unnecessary after rejecting the constitutional challenge.

Preliminary-injunction ruling

A preliminary injunction is temporary court-ordered relief issued before final resolution of a case. The court explained that T-Mobile had to show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favored relief, and that an injunction served the public interest.

The court found that T-Mobile had shown a likelihood of success because the defendants had failed to act on T-Mobile’s applications. At the March 12, 2021 hearing, T-Mobile represented that it would be harmed if the defendants prevented installations or modifications under applications approved by default. Because the default-approval remedy eliminated the need for affirmative approval, the court narrowed the requested relief.

The court granted in part T-Mobile’s motion for a preliminary injunction. It ordered that the City and County of San Francisco and the Department of Building Inspection were estopped from imposing penalties or otherwise preventing T-Mobile from proceeding with installations for applications approved by default.

Disposition

The order granted in part T-Mobile’s motion for summary judgment and granted in part T-Mobile’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion does not state that either motion was denied in part; it states that the injunction’s scope was narrowed and then describes the relief granted.