A new Supreme Court decision has further eroded the regulatory authority of the Federal Communications Commission, adding to the post-Chevron wave of decisions that reduce the influence of federal agencies in interpreting law. In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation, the Court ruled that FCC legal interpretations are not binding in private legal disputes, allowing lower courts to independently evaluate federal statutes without deferring to agency rulings.
Although the case focused on unsolicited fax advertising and did not directly involve broadcasters, its implications are far-reaching. The ruling could affect a wide range of FCC regulations, from political advertising and indecency rules to ownership caps and license enforcement. The Court’s decision opens the door for regulated entities to challenge FCC rulings in district courts without relying solely on the federal appellate system.
At issue was whether lower courts are bound by FCC interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act under the Hobbs Act. McKesson, supported by the federal government, contended that only appeals courts could review agency orders, citing the Hobbs Act as requiring such deference. But in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that federal district courts have the authority to interpret statutes independently, even when an agency like the FCC has issued a definitive interpretation.
This decision builds on the Court’s 2024 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ruling, which overturned the long-standing Chevron deference doctrine. Chevron had required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. With that foundation removed, McKesson pushes the rollback further by extending judicial independence into private enforcement matters, making FCC interpretations less defensible in court.
For broadcasters, the ruling may increase legal uncertainty. While it could empower companies to challenge regulations more freely, it may also result in inconsistent rulings as courts reach varying conclusions about the meaning of FCC policies.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned that weakening agency deference undermines regulatory stability. “This decision invites litigants to ignore agency interpretations until litigation forces clarity,” she wrote.
Consumer attorney Matthew Wessler, who argued the case, praised the ruling. “Today’s decision ensures that consumers can challenge agency interpretations that would weaken their rights. This is a major win for consumer rights and access to justice.”