Court cases are likely where there will be initial wins that will change the legal landscape in terms of wireless regulation and other environmental toxins. Yet, some may be wins for just a few, and leave, like asbestos cases, many still waiting. Support for lawsuits that help all and for well-designed legislation still is needed.
Please note this list of actions is incomplete.
Donations are listed as an option when the organization has requested donations (if known). If you donate, please decide independently how best to maximize impact.
Action to Halt Satellite Wireless
Background: This is a fascinating step to stop the enormous wireless infrastructure being sent into or planned for space. This case is new to us, so please see the secure Healthy Heaven Trust Initiative (HHTI) website for more information: https://ResilienceMultiplier dot com/hhti
Action Against FCC Refusal to Update Exposure Limits – Donations
Background: Wireless exposure limits in the USA are set only to prevent heating, despite hundreds of reputable studies showing this is wrong. The FCC has refused to update, despite concerns provided from experts and professional organizations in closed dockets 13-84 and 03-137. The FCC has cited a letter from Jeffrey Shuren, FDA Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, whose opinions are suspect in part as his wife is an industry lawyer.
- Children’s Health Defense, together with Attorneys Dafna Tachover, Robert Kennedy, and Scott McCollough have filed. Thus far, CHD was able to prevent the dismissal of the lawsuit by forcing the FCC to formally publish its decision not to update the federal exposure guidelines. Note that (1) Dafna Tachover has a history of advocacy from the perspective of an individual with electromagnetic sensitivity and (2) that CHDF is not anti-vaccine, despite appearances, but pro-regulation and for testing of vaccines for safety. Donations are welcome.
- Environmental Health Trust is seeking additional donations after filing and meeting its first 100K and for which EHT received an initial grant from the National Resources Defense Council. EHT needs an additional 100K to continue its suit. Checks should be made payable to the Environmental Health Trust. Please make sure you note on the check specifically that the money is for the FCC appeal. Mail to Environmental Health Trust PO Box 58 , Teton Village WY 83025; FedEx or UPS please use this address Environmental Health Trust at 7100 N. Rachael Way, Teton Village WY 83025. Paypal donations are also welcome.
Action Against Wireless Overcharging to Allow Return of $$$ to States & End Cross-Subsidies – Donations
The Irregulators, a team of former FCC employees and telecommunication experts, are leading action against the FCC’s accounting which has (1) placed billions of the costs of wireless infrastructure onto wired services and consumers; and (2) concealed public ownership of telecommunication infrastructure.
In an initial case, the court filed an opinion that was fairly important, for in this decision, the federal DC court ruled that accounting matter must be settled in state, not federal court. With this ruling, federal court set the ball and control of accounting in the hands of the states.
Update April 2020: The Irregulators are seeking 75K in donations to provide a package of instructions for states to file cases – this could be very helpful since this topic seems so complex. The Irregulators are also willing to work with states. See the website for donations.
Expedited Action Against FCC Ruling to Overrule Local Zoning Override – Funded
A new lawsuit is developing to fight the 2018 September ruling by the FCC to allow telecommunications companies to overrule local zoning laws simply based on a statement of (1) need to improve service or (2) need to provide a new service. This ruling was an agency decision, rather than a decision of Congress. Attorney Andrew Campanelli is lead attorney and planning to initiate cases in the DC and 2nd Circuits (CT, NY, VT). This would be an expedited hearing, with a decision in just a few months.
Filing Against Provisions of Telecommunications Act of 1996
The Cell Phone Task Force and the Santa Fe Alliance for Public Health and Safety filed a lawsuit against the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, in federal court on January 11, 2018. The suit asks the court to declare Santa Fe’s 5G ordinance unconstitutional, and to rule that neither the State of New Mexico nor the U.S. government may prohibit a city from protecting its citizens in relation the Telecommunications Act which states that environmental considerations may not be a factor of cellular infrastructure denial. Filings are at Justia. At the present time, the filings are completed and still waiting the attention of the court.
State & Federal Cases Relevant to 4G/5G Infrastructure
- California Supreme Court affirms local authority to regulate wireless infrastructure. T-Mobile West LLC v. City & County of San Francisco, April 4, 2019, Docket Number: S238001.
- US DC Court of Appeals: The Court vacated the FCC decision to bypass environmental and historic reviews. Case 18-1129 actually means all applications must include an environmental assessment (or certify that it is not needed), even the 23 states that passed a bad ALEC-written bill – the FCC lost. Various tribal and environmental groups, such as the National Resource Defense Council, put forward briefs. We have intervenor Edward B. Myers to thank. His brief was recognized by the DC Circuit judges in their final ruling. Of course, assessment can also be completed by locals/ the town & controversy sent to the FCC.
- DC: Oct 1, 2019, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Case 18-1051: the ruling means the FCC no longer regulates the Internet (web pages, video/music streaming, online gaming and other information services). Therefore, Big Wireless has zero preemption to install or operate personal wireless facilities that emit wireless “information services” transmissions in the USA. This also means that the Wireless Industry only has preemption to place, construct and modify personal wireless facilities for wirelessly transmitting “telecommunications services” (i.e. voice transmissions.
- CA 9th Circuit: This ongoing case argues the FCC exceeded its authority rolling out 5G. Consolidated Case Nos. 19-70123, 19-70124, 19-70125, 19-70136, 19-70144, 19-70145, 19-70146, 19-70147, 19-70326, 19-70339, 19-70341, and 19-70344 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Sprint Corporation, Petitioner, v. City of Bowie, Maryland, et al., Intervenors, v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America Respondents [Case 19-70123, ID 11333654]. See Montgomery County, MD, for copies of filings.
- CA 9th Circuit – November 2018 American Electric Power Service Corporation files petition against FCC over new rules to speed up 5G & Fiber, concerned about lack of zoning permits, limits on fees, and shot clocks, saying: “The Federal Communications Commission does not have legal authority to regulate public power pole attachments due the the clear public power exemption from federal pole attachment regulations set forth in section 224 of the Communications Act, the American Public Power Association said in a recent court brief.” The AEPS notes in the brief that for over forty years, the FCC, Congress, and the courts have repeatedly recognized that the FCC does not have regulatory authority over the rates, terms, and conditions of access to public power utility poles. The following month, the AEPS and 133 public power utilities and associations on March 1 sent a letter to Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., supporting legislation she introduced that would overturn actions by the FCc to regulate public power pole attachments.
Federal Cases Relevant to Cellphones and Wireless Devices
- US Supreme Court: Towns won right to ordinance for consumer cell phone warning that mimicked fine print of telcommunication manual’s warning. Learn about the Berkeley Right to Know (cell phone risks) ordinance and case online at SaferEMR, as described at a blog by Dr. Joel Moskowitz, who is director at the Center for Family and Community Health School of Public Health at the U of CA, Berkeley.
- Iphone Safety Lawsuit (Law 360) Noting that more discovery is needed — including into how the FCC’s guidance should be implemented — the judge denied Apple‘s motion to dismiss. “The court is inclined to hold that if the Apple products ultimately satisfy the commission’s standard, then all claims must be dismissed on preemption grounds,” he said. “On the other hand, if the products in question do not meet the commission standards, then the court is inclined to let all of the claims go forward.” The proposed class claims that based on Apple’s misrepresentations, millions of people purchase their smartphones, carry them around all day and use them up against their skin, without being made aware of the health risks. Plaintiffs initially named Samsung as a defendant but voluntarily dismissed that company from their suit in January. The proposed class is represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan of Fegan Scott LLC and Jennie Lee Anderson of Andrus Anderson LLP. Apple is represented by Jonathan S. Tam, Amisha Rajni Patel, Mark S. Cheffo and Christina Guerola Sarchio of Dechert LLP. The case is Cohen et al. v. Apple Inc. et al., case number 3:19-cv-05322, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
More State Cases
- Florida: The Florida League of Cities and Fort Walton Beach, Naples and Port Orange file suit against state legislation to streamline 5G & hold cities liable for failing to do so (Jill Saunders, August 14, 2019, The News Journal).
- Massachusetts: Dukes County Superior Court, Land Court, Edgartown. Residents file lawsuit to halt potentially illegal tower.