47 U.S.C. § 401

Enforcement provisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Jurisdiction

The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, upon application of the Attorney General of the United States at the request of the Commission, alleging a failure to comply with or a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter by any person, to issue a writ or writs of mandamus commanding such person to comply with the provisions of this chapter.

(b) Orders of Commission

If any person fails or neglects to obey any order of the Commission other than for the payment of money, while the same is in effect, the Commission or any party injured thereby, or the United States, by its Attorney General, may apply to the appropriate district court of the United States for the enforcement of such order. If, after hearing, that court determines that the order was regularly made and duly served, and that the person is in disobedience of the same, the court shall enforce obedience to such order by a writ of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to restrain such person or the officers, agents, or representatives of such person, from further disobedience of such order, or to enjoin upon it or them obedience to the same.

Upon the request of the Commission it shall be the duty of any United States attorney to whom the Commission may apply to institute in the proper court and to prosecute under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States all necessary proceedings for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter and for the punishment of all violations thereof, and the costs and expenses of such prosecutions shall be paid out of the appropriations for the expenses of the courts of the United States.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title IV, § 401, 48 Stat. 1092; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 1, 62 Stat. 909; Pub. L. 93–528, § 6(a), Dec. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 1709.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (c), was in the original “this Act”, meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

1974—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 93–528 repealed subsec. (d) which provided that the provisions of sections 28 and 29 of title 15, section 345(1) of title 28, and sections 44 and 45 of title 49, shall be held to apply to any suit in equity arising under sections 201 to 222 of this title, wherein the United States is complainant.

Satutory Notes and related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, substituted “United States attorney” for “district attorney” in subsec. (c). See section 541 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and Historical and Revision Notes thereunder.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 103 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1939–2026 · leading case: Neil Ellis v. Tribune Television Co., Docket No. 05-1983-Cv, 443 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Neil Ellis v. Tribune Television Co., Docket No. 05-1983-Cv, 443 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 11× “Tribune previously received several temporary waivers and had applied for a permanent waiver, but, after the last temporary waiver had expired and while Tribune’s application for the permanent waiver was pending, plaintiff Neil Ellis (“Ellis”), a Hartford-area resident, brought…”

United States v. Jerry Szoka, 260 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2001). · cites it 14× “In order to compel compliance with the cease and desist order, the United States filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 401 (b). The FCC requested a preliminary and permanent injunction to stop Szoka from…”

United States v. Peninsula Commc'ns, Inc., 287 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 6× “In July 2001, pursuant to the procedure for enforcing FCC orders set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 401 (b), 5 the United States filed the action below in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska seeking an injunction to enforce the terms of the FCC’s May 2001 order.”

New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 570 F. Supp. 1558 (D. Me. 1983). · cites it 15× “INTRODUCTION This is an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.A. § 401 (b) (1962) of the Communications Act of 1934 (the “Act”), see 47 U.”

Gene A. Folden, Coastal Commc'ns Assocs., & Judith A. Longshore v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “47 U.S.C. § 401 (b) (2000). At the same time, in 47 U.”

Lansdowne on the Potomac Homeowners Ass'n v. OpenBand at Lansdowne, LLC, 713 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Satisfied that Article III poses no obstacle to suit, we next consider OpenBand’s argument that LHOA’s claim falls outside the scope of the private right of action conferred by 47 U.S.C. § 401 (b). That provision states: “[i]f any person fails or neglects to obey any order of…”

New England Tel. & Tel. Co., Etc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Maine, 742 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “The private party, namely the New England Telephone Company, invoking the authority of section 401(b) of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 401 (b), obtained a federal district court injunction requiring the Maine commission to comply with the FCC rule.”

San Juan Cable LLC v. Puerto Rico Tel. Co., 612 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 541 (b)(1), against a rival who has violated that provision? The second issue requires us to revisit a question that we have answered before: does a cable operator have standing, under section 401(b) of the Communications Policy Act of 1984 (Communications Act), 47 U.S.C. §…”

MGC Commc'ns, Inc. v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 146 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (S.D. Fla. 2001). · cites it 4× “§ 2 ; and (3) failure £o obey the FCC’s UNE Remand Order, 1 in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 401 (b). Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.”

Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007). “§§ 201 (b), 206, and 207 (Count II); (3) Under 47 U.S.C. § 401 , Plaintiffs-Ap-pellees seek (a) a declaratory judgment that CenturyTel violated 47 U.”

Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165 (1958). · cites it 2× “1092 , 47 U. S. C. § 401 ; Defense Production Act of 1950, 64 Stat.”

CGM, LLC v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 664 F.3d 46 (4th Cir. 2011). “CGM relies specifically on 47 U.S.C. § 401 (b), which states in pertinent part: If any person fails or neglects to obey any order of the [FCC] other than for the payment of money, while the same is in effect, the [FCC] or any party injured thereby .”

Show all 103 citing cases →

— 47 U.S.C. § 401(b) — 1 case

New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 570 F. Supp. 1558 (D. Me. 1983). “INTRODUCTION This is an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.A. § 401 (b) (1962) of the Communications Act of 1934 (the “Act”), see 47 U.”

— 47 U.S.C. § 401(d) — 1 case

United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R., 276 F.2d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.