City of Austin v. Abbott, 385 F. Supp. 3d 537

Texas enacted SB 1004 (Tex. Loc. Gov't Code ch. 284) restricting municipal permitting and fees for small cell wireless nodes in the public right-of-way and imposing time limits and moratorium prohibitions.
City of Austin sued Texas and state officials seeking to enjoin SB 1004 as pre-empted by the Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA) (original complaint; amended complaint added private telecoms and the Texas attorney general).
Defendants moved to dismiss on jurisdictional and merits grounds: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction/standing, Ex parte Young inapplicability, and failure to state a pre-emption claim under 47 U.S.C. §§ 253(c) and 332(c)(7).
The Court found federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for the pre-emption claim, but Ex parte Young requires a proper official; the Texas attorney general was deemed a proper defendant because of his history of enforcing state law against Austin.
On the merits, the Court held as a matter of law that § 253(c) does not pre-empt SB 1004 and § 332(c)(7) does not bar a state law from imposing shorter review periods; thus Austin failed to state a claim.
Because the defects were legal and not curable by amendment, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction / standing	City: federal courts may hear federal pre-emption suits; City will lose revenue and can be redressed	Defs: no private cause of action under Supremacy Clause; speculative injury	Held: § 1331 provides jurisdiction; City has Article III standing (financial injury alleged)
Ex parte Young – proper state defendant	City: AG has enforcement connection and has repeatedly sued Austin to enforce state law	State: AG lacks the requisite enforcement connection; sovereign immunity bars suit	Held: AG is a proper defendant under Ex parte Young given his history enforcing state supremacy over City ordinances
Pre-emption under 47 U.S.C. § 253(c)	City: § 253(c) preserves local authority and thus pre-empts SB 1004's limits on municipal fees/authority	Defs: § 253(c) does not grant affirmative powers or block state limits; plain text preserves existing authority from federal encroachment only	Held: § 253(c) does not pre-empt SB 1004 as a matter of law
Pre-emption under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)	City: federal "reasonable period" standard limits states; SB 1004's shorter shot clock is pre-empted	Defs: § 332(c)(7) caps delays but allows shorter state/local review periods; FCC interpretation permits shorter state/local timelines	Held: § 332(c)(7) does not pre-empt a state law that sets shorter review periods; SB 1004 survives

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (recognizing injunctive exception to state sovereign immunity)
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85 (federal courts have jurisdiction to enjoin state officials who interfere with federal rights)
Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 U.S. 635 (district courts have jurisdiction over federal pre-emption claims even absent a private cause of action)
City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (Chevron deference to FCC interpretation of § 332 reasonable-period requirement)
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., 135 S. Ct. 1378 (Ex parte Young equitable exception remains required for suits against state officers)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements)
Nixon v. Missouri Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125 (clear-statement rule for federal displacement of state-municipal relationships)