Gilardi v. Board of Health of Pittsfield, SJC 13797

Pittsfield Cellular Telephone Company began operating a wireless cell tower in Pittsfield in August 2020, and nearby residents complained of headaches, tinnitus, and nausea they attributed to RF emissions. 1
After investigating, the board issued an emergency order finding the tower a public nuisance and directing Verizon to justify why the tower should not be shut down to protect citizens from injury and harm. 2
Verizon sued in federal court claiming the order was preempted by the Telecommunications Act, and the board rescinded the order and Verizon dismissed its suit. 3
Six residents then sued in Superior Court to challenge the rescission, arguing the board acted arbitrarily and breached its duty under G. L. c. 111, § 122. 4
The motion judge treated the board's dismissal motion as one for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the suit as federally preempted. 5
The parties stipulated that preemption was dispositive, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. 6
The court held that obstacle preemption was the only conflict-preemption theory at issue because the board did not claim it was impossible to comply with both state and federal law. 7

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does federal preemption govern the board's order? 8	Board could regulate local health nuisances and rescind its own order.	TCA preempts any local RF-emissions restriction.	Yes; federal preemption controls. 9
Does the board's shutdown order conflict with the TCA? 10	Order addressed health risks and only adjudicated this tower.	Order imposed extra RF restrictions despite FCC-compliant standards.	Yes; the order is obstacle preempted. 11
Do plaintiffs' arguments and TCA savings clauses avoid preemption? 12	Local health authority and savings clauses preserve the order.	Savings clauses do not defeat conflict preemption; local RF rules remain barred.	No; plaintiffs' arguments fail and the dismissal is affirmed. 13

Hillsborough County v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (U.S. 1985) (state law is invalid when it conflicts with federal law 14)
Marsh v. Massachusetts Coastal R.R., 492 Mass. 641 (Mass. 2023) (modern Massachusetts formulation of express, field, and conflict preemption 15)
Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc., 478 Mass. 169 (Mass. 2017) (presumption against preemption in traditional state-police-power areas 16)
Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (U.S. 2005) (TCA aims to promote competition and rapid deployment of telecommunications technology 17)
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (U.S. 2012) (federal preemption follows Congress's deliberate choice of centralized decisionmaking 18)
Farina v. Nokia Inc., 625 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 2010) (uniform nationwide RF standards are essential to an efficient wireless network 19)
Robbins v. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, 854 F.3d 315 (6th Cir. 2017) (RF-emissions claims can be preempted because they burden cell-tower deployment and service 20)
Bennett v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 597 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (local restrictions on FCC-compliant RF emissions second-guess federal balancing 21)
Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (U.S. 2001) (state-law claims may not skew a federal regulatory balance 22)
Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (U.S. 2000) (savings clauses do not defeat ordinary conflict preemption 23)