T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco

California Supreme Court

Tab Group

Merits Stage

California Supreme Court rejects facial challenge to San Francisco wireless ordinance

April 4, 2019

Click here to view the opinion.

U.S. Chamber urges California Supreme Court to strike down San Francisco wireless ordinance

May 11, 2017

The U.S. Chamber filed an amicus brief urging the California Supreme Court to hold that San Francisco’s Wireless Ordinance is preempted by state law.

The Chamber’s brief argues that the Court of Appeal’s decision imposes a misguided test for facial preemption challenges that is inconsistent with the preemption precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court. Under the correct standard, a local law is preempted when state and local provisions apply different standards to the same inquiry. The brief also argues that permitting every municipality to impose its own standards on the deployment of telecommunications networks would dissuade companies from investing in new telecommunications infrastructure and significantly slow technological progress.

This brief was filed jointly with the California Chamber of Commerce, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the Bay Area Council, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.

Scott B. Wilkens, Matthew S. Hellman, Adam G. Unikowsky, Erica L. Ross, and Leonard R. Powell of Jenner & Block LLP served as counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

Petition Stage

California Supreme Court agrees to review case addressing standard of review applicable to facial preemption challenges

December 21, 2016

The California Supreme Court granted the petition for review.

U.S. Chamber urges California Supreme Court to grant review in preemption case

October 31, 2016

The U.S. Chamber filed an amicus letter asking the California Supreme Court to review a Court of Appeal decision imposing a misguided test for facial preemption challenges that is inconsistent with the preemption precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal held that where a plaintiff challenges a local ordinance as preempted by a state statute, the challenge fails unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that there is “no set of circumstances” under which the local law would be valid.

The Chamber’s letter argued that, under the correct standard, a local law is preempted when state and local provisions apply different standards to the same inquiry. In this case, because state and local law impose different standards on whether a telephone company may install wireless facilities, the local law is preempted. The letter also explained that a proper preemption analysis requires looking to both the purpose and effects of the challenged law—questions that cannot be meaningfully answered if the court considers only the specific facts of the case before it.

Matthew S. Hellman, Scott B. Wilkens, Adam G. Unikowsky, and Erica L. Ross of Jenner & Block LLP served as counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Litigation