Reuters Ltd. V. FCC

Reuters Limited (Reuters) (plaintiff) filed 13 microwave radio license applications with the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) (defendant), which the Commission's Private Radio Bureau approved. On the very day of that approval, Associated Information Services Corporation (Associated) tried to file competing applications for the same cities but misfiled them at the wrong location, so they weren't actually filed until five days later, meaning no competing applications existed on file when Reuters' licenses were approved. After Associated protested, relying on an ambiguous FCC order about filing timelines, the Private Radio Bureau rescinded Reuters' 13 licenses. On appeal to the full Commission, the Commission agreed that its own rules actually permitted issuing licenses after 30 days when no competing application was on file, meaning Reuters had properly received its licenses — but the Commission still rescinded them anyway, reasoning that doing so served the interest of justice given the ambiguity in its earlier pronouncements. Reuters challenged that rescission before the D.C. Circuit.