Summary
**Key Topics:** Article III standing, FCC jurisdiction, rate-of-return vs. price-cap regulation, jurisdictional separations freeze, injury-in-fact requirement. **Summary:** The D.C. Circuit dismissed a petition challenging the FCC's order extending a freeze on outdated jurisdictional separations accounting rules for telephone companies. The court held that the individual petitioners lacked Article III standing because they failed to show any concrete injury traceable to the order—none purchased service from a rate-of-return carrier directly, and their indirect theories of harm were too speculative. The opinion reaffirms that petitioners must demonstrate a substantial probability of actual, not hypothetical, injury to challenge agency action in federal court.
Questions Presented
- Whether the petitioners have Article III standing to challenge the FCC's 2018 Order extending the jurisdictional separations freeze.
Cases Cited (0)
No outbound citations extracted.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.