PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc.
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc. and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc..
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding whether PDR Network's fax was an unsolicited advertisement. The Court identified two preliminary issues: whether the 2006 FCC order is a legislative or interpretive rule, and whether PDR had a prior and adequate opportunity for judicial review. The case was remanded for further consideration of these issues.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc..
The Court held that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded for consideration of preliminary issues.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc.. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc.
The case involves determining whether an FCC order is a legislative rule with the force of law or an interpretive rule without such force, which is central to administrative law.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)First, is the order the equivalent of a 'legislative rule,' which is 'issued by an agency pursuant to statutory authority' and has the 'force and effect of law'?
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc.
The case addresses whether PDR had an adequate opportunity for judicial review of the FCC order, which is a question of judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Second, did PDR have a 'prior' and 'adequate' opportunity to seek judicial review of the order?
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc. that support the summary and concepts above.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for that court to consider these preliminary issues.
If the order is the equivalent of an 'interpretive rule,' it may not be binding on a district court.
Did PDR have a 'prior' and 'adequate' opportunity to seek judicial review of the order?
