In one of its final decisions in 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in interpreting the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), signaling a broader recalibration of agency deference in federal courts. Most notably, in McLaughlin v. McKesson, the Court held that district courts are not bound to follow FCC interpretations of the TCPA when adjudicating enforcement actions. This ruling effectively overturns prior assumptions that administrative orders—such as the FCC's "Amerifactors" order declaring online fax services exempt from the TCPA—must be followed without question. The Court emphasized that judges have an independent obligation to interpret statutes, and FCC rulings are to be given persuasive, but not binding, weight.
This development dovetails with the Court's related decision narrowing the application of the Hobbs Act in the same case. Historically, the Hobbs Act was understood to give appellate courts exclusive jurisdiction to review FCC orders, often leading lower courts to defer to those rulings without revisiting their merits. The Supreme Court clarified that the Hobbs Act does not require such deference in the context of private litigation. Instead, district courts are expected to engage in their own analysis of statutory language, even when it has been previously interpreted by the FCC.
The McLaughlin v. McKesson represents a shift in the judicial posture toward administrative authority. The FCC, and potentially other agencies, no longer have the final word in enforcement matters governed by ambiguous statutes. The implications for TCPA litigation are substantial. Defendants can now challenge longstanding FCC interpretations that once seemed untouchable. For example, questions surrounding what qualifies as "prior express consent" or the scope of liability for autodialed calls and text messages may now be reopened in district courts that are no longer beholden to the FCC’s prior rules.
This decision is also part of a broader pattern of recent Supreme Court rulings that emphasize the judiciary’s primary role in interpreting the law. The Court's message is clear: courts are not to serve as passive conduits of agency directives but as active interpreters of statutory meaning. This judicial turn away from deference to regulatory agencies marks a pivotal shift in administrative law.
For practitioners, this changing landscape means recalibrating strategies for both compliance and litigation. Companies that previously relied on FCC interpretations as safe harbors may need to reevaluate those assumptions. Meanwhile, litigators may find new avenues for challenging agency-based claims, particularly in the context of TCPA disputes. The erosion of automatic deference under the Hobbs Act invites a more adversarial and interpretive approach in district courts, where statutory text and judicial reasoning now take precedence over administrative conclusions.
