Knick v. Township of Scott
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Knick v. Township of Scott 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 Knick v. Township of Scott.
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the judgment of the Court of Appeals in a case involving whether an FCC order is binding on lower courts. The Court identified two preliminary questions: whether the 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 Knick v. Township of Scott.
The Court held that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and remanded for consideration of preliminary issues regarding the FCC order.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Knick v. Township of Scott. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Knick v. Township of Scott
The case involves determining whether an FCC order is binding on lower courts, which relates to the constitutional limits on agency authority.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The extent to which the 2006 FCC order binds the lower courts may depend on the resolution of two preliminary sets of questions...
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Knick v. Township of Scott
The case involves the ability of courts to review agency orders and whether PDR had an opportunity for judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)If the Hobbs Act's exclusive-review provision... did not afford PDR a 'prior' and 'adequate' opportunity for judicial review...
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Knick v. Township of Scott
The case discusses whether PDR had a 'prior' and 'adequate' opportunity for judicial review, implicating fair procedures.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)If the Hobbs Act's exclusive-review provision... did not afford PDR a 'prior' and 'adequate' opportunity for judicial review...
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Knick v. Township of Scott 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?
