T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Georgia

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2015 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawTelecommunications ActLocal zoning authorityStatutory interpretation47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)effective prohibitionregulationdecision

Facts

In 2010, T-Mobile applied to build a 108-foot cell phone tower on vacant residential property in Roswell, Georgia. A local zoning ordinance required permits for new wireless facilities and allowed approval or denial based on nine factors, and Roswell denied the application. T-Mobile alleged, among other things, that the denial prevented it from filling a gap in service. The district court applied the significant-gap test, found that T-Mobile had no viable alternative means to close the gap, and ordered Roswell to issue the necessary permits.

Issue

Does the Telecommunications Act's ban on local regulation that 'prohibit[s] or ha[s] the effect of prohibiting' personal wireless services, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i), apply to a municipality's denial of a single permit application? Or does the provision reach only local regulation of wireless siting by rule, including written or unwritten rules, rather than an individual permit denial itself?

Rule

In § 332(c)(7)(B)(i), 'the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities' means control by rule or restriction, not an individual zoning decision denying a single permit application. A provider asserting an effective-prohibition claim must challenge the zoning rules themselves, including unwritten rules reflected in repeated decisions, rather than claim that one permit denial by itself constitutes an effective prohibition.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Prairie Wireless LLC applied to build a new wireless facility on a church parcel in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The city council denied the application after a public hearing, and Prairie sued alleging only that this denial left a coverage hole and therefore had the effect of prohibiting wireless service.

Under the governing rule, is Prairie most likely to prevail on its effective-prohibition claim?

Explanation. The majority held that the effective-prohibition provision reaches local regulation by rule or restriction, not the denial of a single permit application standing alone. A provider must challenge the zoning rules themselves, including broader written or unwritten restrictions, rather than claim that one denial alone constitutes an effective prohibition. (Derived from T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Georgia (2015).)