D.C. Circuit Rejects Appeals of FCC's SpaceX Approval
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Dish Network and International Dark-Sky Association (IDSA) arguments seeking a reversal of the FCC's OK of SpaceX's second-generation satellite constellation. In a 21-page opinion Friday (consolidated dockets 22-1337 and 23-1001),…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
the three-judge panel said the FCC decision was "lawful and reasonably explained." Oral argument was in December (see [Ref;2312110031]). Pointing to Dish's challenge of the way SpaceX conducted its power flux-density limits testing, the judges said the commission's rules don't specify how an applicant must group its data. Moreover, Dish's evidence that a different grouping of the data shows SpaceX's system would exceed PFD limits "falls well short of a smoking gun that would require the FCC to disregard SpaceX’s self-certification," they said. Pointing to IDSA arguments that the FCC shouldn't have licensed the second-gen system without an environmental review, the court said the SpaceX license falls within the National Environmental Policy Act's categorical exclusion, so an environmental assessment is needed only if the FCC determines the license could have a significant environmental impact. The ruling said that the FCC "reasonably concluded" there wouldn't be any such impact. Deciding were Judges Neomi Rao, Michelle Childs and Douglas Ginsburg, with Rao penning the order. Nowhere does the decision cite or reference the Supreme Court's recent Loper Bright decision (see 2406280043), which ended the Chevron doctrine of courts largely deferring to federal agencies' expert decisions; nor does it cite Chevron.