Conference Group, LLC 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.

• noting that adjudications are “highly fact-specific, case-by-case” determinations
• “The fact that an order rendered in an adjudication may affect agency policy and have general prospective application does not make it rulemaking subject to APA section 553 notice and comment.”
• “[M]erely foreseeable future litigation resulting from a[n] . . . interpretation that an agency has adopted is alone . . . too speculative to satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “The fact that an order rendered in an adjudication ‘may affect agency policy and have general prospective application . . . does not make it rulemaking subject to APA section 553 notice and comment.”
• “The fact that an order rendered in an adjudication may affect agency 24 policy and have general prospective application does not make it a rulemaking subject to the APA’s section 553 notice and comment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).