City of Arlington 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 failure to provide notice and comment was harmless because court was “not aware of a single argument the [plaintiffs] now present to this court that was not considered by the FCC in the agency proceedings below”
• finding that declaratory ruling by FCC establishing Chargualaf v. Gov’t of Guam Ret. Fund, 2021 Guam 17, Opinion Page 9 of 21 what constituted reasonable time period under Telecommunications Act was “result of adjudication” rather than notice-and-comment rulemaking
• finding harmless error where the agency showed there was not “a single argument the [plaintiffs] now present . . . that was not considered by the [agency] in the agency proceedings”
• “[A] party [cannot] rely on her timely intervention with respect to another party’s petition for review to raise matters outside the scope of the other party’s petition.”
• “The purpose of notice-and-comment rulemaking is to assure fairness and mature consideration of rules having a substantial impact on those reg- ulated.” (quoting United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912, 931 (5th Cir. 2011))
• “The purpose of notice-and-comment rulemaking is to assure fairness and mature consideration of rules having a substantial impact on those reg- ulated.” (quoting United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912, 931 (5th Cir. 2011))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).