Celtronix Telemetry, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that no “vested right” existed for purposes of retroactivity analysis where the prior “system offered no vested right to any specific terms” of a license and the agency “always retained the power to alter the term of existing licenses by rulemaking”
• noting that the arbitrary and capricious standard apples to “secondary retroactivity”—e.g., a new regulation that makes worthless substantial investment incurred in reliance upon the prior rule
• The FCC “always retain[s] the power to alter the term of existing licenses by rulemaking.” (emphasis added)
• “Celtronix never explains where this vested right came from. * * * [I]t is undisputed that the Commission always retained the power to alter the term of existing licenses by rulemaking.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).