McLaughlin v. McKesson – What the Supreme Court’s Decision Means for TCPA Litigation & Compliance

The Supreme Court issued yet another landmark decision tackling questions about how much deference courts owe to administrative agencies. In ., 606 U.S. ___ (2025), the Supreme Court held that district courts are not bound to defer to FCC rulings and orders interpreting the TCPA. Building on its decision in Loper-Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), the Supreme Court cabined the Hobbs Act and found that district courts must independently determine the TCPA’s meaning, using ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, while giving FCC interpretations only “appropriate respect.” This decision shakes up the playing field and presents opportunities for TCPA litigants to challenge FCC interpretations that previously were not open to dispute.

The Backstory

In 2009 and 2010, a subsidiary of health care company McKesson Corporation sent unsolicited fax advertisements to medical practices, including McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates. McLaughlin sued McKesson in a federal class action in the Northern District of California in 2014, alleging violations of the TCPA’s rules requiring opt-out notices for unsolicited faxes. Some of the putative class members received faxes on a traditional paper-based fax machine, but others received electronic faxes delivered to email or an online portal.

The District Court certified a class that included both recipients of paper and e-faxes but drew no distinction between the two. After the District Court certified the class but while the litigation was still pending, the FCC issued its 2019 , which determined that the TCPA did not apply to faxes received through an online fax service. Based on its understanding that Amerifactors was a “final, binding order” that governed the District Court’s interpretation of the TCPA under the Hobbs Act, and because there would be no way to determine which class members received paper faxes (covered by the TCPA) and which received e-faxes (not covered by the TCPA), the District Court decertified the class and granted summary judgment to McKesson on McLaughlin’s claims involving e-faxes. The Ninth Circuit affirmed on appeal, and McLaughlin asked the Supreme Court to consider the case.

The Question Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a 1950 statute, the Hobbs Act, required the District Court to follow the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA.

The Hobbs Act provides that courts of appeals have “exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend … or determine the validity of” final orders of the FCC. 28 U.S.C. §2342(1). Under the Hobbs Act, parties have 60 days after issuance of an FCC order to file a petition in a court of appeals seeking review of the order and/or declaratory or injunctive relief against enforcement of the order. This pre-enforcement review process has long been interpreted to mean that, in subsequent enforcement proceedings, district courts are barred from considering whether the FCC incorrectly interpreted the statute.

In its petition asking the Supreme Court to take up the case, McLaughlin argued that the Hobbs Act did not require the District Court to defer to the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA in the Amerifactors ruling.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court agreed with McLaughlin, finding that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil lawsuits and government enforcement proceedings to accept the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA. Rather, in civil lawsuits and enforcement proceedings, district courts must “independently determine” whether the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA is correct, using “ordinary principles of statutory interpretation” and “affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation.” McLaughlin, at 7–8.

The Supreme Court emphasized that this is a default rule, and that Congress can “choose to expressly preclude judicial review in enforcement proceedings” if it explicitly does so in the statute. Absent such express language, however, parties are free to argue, and district courts may consider, whether the agency’s interpretation is correct.

The opinion also noted that the 60-day time limit to seek judicial review limited the opportunity for the public to challenge FCC interpretations, creating a situation in which district courts would be required “to afford absolute deference to the agency” because, once the “initial window for pre-enforcement review closes, no one can argue in court that the agency’s interpretation of a statute is incorrect—no matter how wrong the agency’s interpretation might be.” Id. at 21.

The Supreme Court also left open a path for McLaughlin to extend beyond challenges to interpretive rulings and reach FCC rulemakings. In a footnote, the Court acknowledged that parties to an enforcement action could also challenge the FCC’s authority using any available basis under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), such as challenging the agency’s authority to act in the first instance.

Why It Matters

The Supreme Court’s decision upends the previously accepted view that FCC interpretations of the TCPA are dispositive, giving district courts leeway to interpret the statute and allowing litigants to bring challenges in TCPA cases that were previously off the table.

However, the ruling presents something of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, parties are no longer constrained by unfavorable FCC declaratory rulings and final orders, and can urge district courts to use the full range of statutory interpretation tools in evaluating application of the TCPA. On the other hand, parties can no longer rely on FCC decisions as settled law and must be prepared to litigate positions previously not open to challenge. For example, McLaughlin presents the opportunity to alter otherwise settled TCPA principles, such as whether texts are “calls,” whether a “called party” means the intended recipient of the call or the current subscriber of the number, and whether the call time restrictions under the Do Not Call rules are valid.

It will take some time for these district court decisions to percolate up to appellate courts and create binding authority. This paradigm is likely to encourage forum shopping by TCPA litigants. It is also unlikely that the Supreme Court will take on every TCPA issue that may result in a circuit split. The resulting uncertainty of this new paradigm will complicate TCPA litigation and compliance alike.

Now is the time to re-evaluate your litigation positions and assess your TCPA compliance programs, to assess the assumptions you may be making and the impact of possible future challenges in this changing legal landscape.

Stay Informed

TCPA Compliance and Class Action Defense Partner will join a panel for an ActiveProspect FCC webinar episode titled, “Who’s in Charge Now? Courts vs FCC After McLaughlin Ruling” on Thursday, July 10, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. ET/10:30 a.m. PT.

To learn more and register, click .