Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. Federal Communications Commission
242 U.S. App. D.C. 222, 750 F.2d 70 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a statute commits review of final agency action exclusively to a Court of Appeals, that court possesses exclusive jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to hear suits seeking to compel unreasonably delayed agency action, as such suits are in aid of the court's future statutory review power.
Facts:
- In 1976, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set a maximum rate of return for American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) and required an accounting system to facilitate potential refunds for overcharges.
- For the year 1978, AT&T's calculated rate of return was potentially in excess of the FCC's established maximum.
- On July 20, 1979, Telecommunications Research & Action Center (TRAC) filed a petition with the FCC requesting a determination of whether AT&T had earned excess revenues and an order for appropriate relief to ratepayers.
- After soliciting comments in late 1979, the FCC took no further action on TRAC's petition for nearly five years.
- In a separate matter, the FCC began an inquiry in 1982 concerning whether AT&T ratepayers had impermissibly been charged for approximately $500 million in development costs for customer premises equipment (CPE) between 1980 and 1982.
- After receiving comments from AT&T and the public by early 1983, the FCC took no action to resolve the CPE expense issue for nearly two years.
Procedural Posture:
- Telecommunications Research & Action Center (TRAC) and other public interest groups filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directly in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The petition sought to compel the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to decide two unresolved matters concerning alleged overcharges by AT&T.
- AT&T intervened in the action.
- The Court of Appeals, sua sponte, ordered the parties to brief the jurisdictional issue of whether such a petition properly lies in the Court of Appeals or in a U.S. District Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Court of Appeals have exclusive jurisdiction over a petition to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed, when a statute provides that any final agency action would be directly and exclusively reviewable in that Court of Appeals?
Opinions:
Majority - Edwards, J.
Yes. Where a statute vests exclusive jurisdiction over final agency action in the Court of Appeals, that court also has exclusive jurisdiction to review claims of unreasonable agency delay. This power derives from the All Writs Act, which authorizes a court to issue writs 'necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.' Because an agency's failure to issue a final, reviewable order could indefinitely frustrate the appellate court's future statutory review, a petition to compel action is a necessary tool to protect that prospective jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is exclusive because the statutory grant of review authority to the appellate court implicitly divests other courts, such as District Courts, of jurisdiction over the same class of claims. Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the appellate courts promotes judicial economy, leverages institutional expertise regarding specific agencies, and prevents the duplicative and potentially conflicting review that would arise from concurrent jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant, bright-line jurisdictional rule for administrative law in the D.C. Circuit, resolving prior inconsistencies in case law. By holding that Courts of Appeals have exclusive jurisdiction over unreasonable delay claims when they also have jurisdiction over the final agency action, the ruling streamlines the litigation process. It eliminates forum shopping between district and circuit courts and consolidates review of agency action and inaction in the court with the most expertise on a particular agency, thereby promoting judicial efficiency and predictability for litigants.
