Recent SCOTUS Decision Removing Deference Courts Must Show to FCC TCPA Declaratory Ruling Brings More Uncertainty Rather Than Clarity
Administrative law, including the ability of courts to review federal agency decisions and the degree of deference shown by courts to those decisions, is changing daily, it seems. When the United States Supreme Court last year abandoned the “Chevron deference” that courts had afforded to administrative agency decisions for decades, many anticipated that confusion and uncertainty would follow. With federal judges now free in most, but not all, cases to discount or disregard an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation and draw their own conclusions as to scope and meaning, multiple and conflicting decisions within and among district and circuit courts seemed likely, as did an increase in litigation challenging agency decisions and interpretations.
A recent Supreme Court decision regarding the ability to challenge the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) application of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) only “muddies the water” further with respect to a statute (the TCPA) which, if violated on a large scale, can bankrupt a company.
In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation, the Court considered whether courts must defer to the FCC’s conclusion that the TCPA’s prohibition on unsolicited telephone fax advertisements does not apply to online fax services.
In a 6-3 decision issued on June 20, 2025, and authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court held that the district court was not bound by the FCC’s decision. The Court concluded that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency’s interpretation of a statute. Instead, district courts must independently determine the law’s meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation. The Court remanded the case to the district court with that instruction.
What Does This Mean For Companies That Make Outbound Calls or Send Texts
As noted, the decision in McLaughlin will provide litigants (both the party called and the caller) with more opportunity – and better odds – to challenge most FCC decisions. District courts will now have more wiggle room to disagree with certain FCC declaratory rulings governing many aspects of the TCPA, including what is required to have the proper consent to call, how consent can be revoked, the scope of the statute (e.g., is a text a “call”), and whether cell phones (even if being used for a “residential purpose”) are subject to the statute’s do-not-call protections. And with potentially divergent interpretations coming out of district courts, various federal appellate courts will need to bring uniformity to their respective circuits. Now is the time to review your company’s outbound calling/texting policies and procedures (and those of your vendor if you use one) with counsel to ensure they align with your company’s “risk appetite”.
If you have any questions about this decision or the TCPA generally, please contact Robert Horwitz at Maddin Hauser.