PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc.
588 U.S. 1
SCOTUS2019Background
- PDR Network (PDR) sent faxes to health-care providers offering a free e-book version of the Physicians’ Desk Reference; Carlton & Harris Chiropractic sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claiming the fax was an "unsolicited advertisement."
- TCPA prohibits sending an "unsolicited advertisement" by fax; the FCC in a 2006 Order interpreted "unsolicited advertisement" to include offers of free goods or services (e.g., free magazines).
- District Court dismissed the suit, concluding PDR’s fax was not an unsolicited advertisement and that a district court need not be bound by the FCC Order.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated, holding the Hobbs Act’s grant of "exclusive jurisdiction" to courts of appeals to "determine the validity" of FCC final orders required district courts to adopt the FCC’s interpretation.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Hobbs Act required district courts in enforcement actions to accept FCC statutory interpretations; the Court vacated and remanded to allow the Fourth Circuit to consider two preliminary questions (whether the Order is a legislative vs. interpretive rule, and whether PDR had a prior, adequate opportunity for judicial review).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carlton) | Defendant's Argument (PDR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Hobbs Act requires district courts in private enforcement actions to treat FCC interpretations in final orders as binding (i.e., precludes district-court review of the agency’s statutory interpretation) | Hobbs Act’s "exclusive jurisdiction" over FCC "final orders" means only courts of appeals may "determine the validity" of an FCC order, so district courts must adopt FCC interpretations | District courts may independently interpret the statute in enforcement suits; Hobbs Act does not expressly preclude as-applied challenges and §703 of the APA preserves review in enforcement proceedings | Court did not decide the merits; vacated Fourth Circuit and remanded so the court of appeals can first resolve preliminary questions that may obviate the broader Hobbs Act question |
| Whether the 2006 FCC Order is a legislative rule (binding, force of law) or an interpretive rule (nonbinding), and whether PDR had a prior, adequate opportunity to obtain judicial review under the Hobbs Act/APA | Implicitly: if the FCC Order is a binding legislative rule and PDR had an adequate opportunity for pre-enforcement review, district courts should defer | If the Order is interpretive, it is not binding; alternatively, if the Hobbs Act did not provide a prior, adequate opportunity for review, APA §703 may permit as-applied challenge in enforcement proceedings | Court held these are threshold issues that were not considered below and remanded for the Court of Appeals to decide them before resolving the Hobbs Act question |
Key Cases Cited
- Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (distinguishes legislative rules and interpretive rules)
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 575 U.S. 92 (clarifies difference between interpretive and legislative rules)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference framework referenced)
- Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (pre-Enforcement-review precedent discussed)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (permitting facial pre-enforcement review while preserving as-applied review)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (authority for respect/deference short of binding effect)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (Article III judicial duty to say what the law is)
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (syllabus disclaimer cited at opinion start)