## Facts

- Mark J. Abrams owned residential property in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, suitable for radio transmission antennas.
- Abrams obtained a permit in 1989 to build a 52.5-foot antenna for amateur radio use.
- In 1998, Abrams sought permission to construct a second antenna tower; during review, the City determined Abrams was using antennas partly for commercial purposes.
- Under a city ordinance, commercial antenna use required a conditional use permit.
- Abrams applied for a conditional use permit in 1999; the City denied it, citing, among other things, neighbor opposition.
- Abrams sued in federal court alleging the City’s denial violated 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7), as added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
- Abrams sought injunctive relief under § 332(c)(7)(B)(v) and also sought damages and attorney’s fees via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged violations of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)’s limits on local zoning authority may be enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages and attorney’s fees.
2. Whether the remedial mechanism in § 332(c)(7)(B)(v) implies congressional intent to foreclose § 1983 enforcement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit insofar as it allowed a § 1983 action for damages and attorney’s fees.
- The Court held that § 332(c)(7) may not be enforced through § 1983 because Congress provided a different, statute-specific judicial remedy in § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).
- The case was remanded; relief was limited to the remedy provided by § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).

## Legal Principles

- Even when a federal statute creates rights enforceable by individuals, § 1983 is unavailable if Congress, in the statute itself, indicates an intent to foreclose § 1983 enforcement.
- An express private remedy within a statute is ordinarily evidence that Congress did not intend to permit a broader, alternative remedy under § 1983.
- Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) provides a focused remedial scheme: suit by an “adversely affected” person, a 30-day filing deadline after final action, and expedited judicial decision.
- Allowing § 1983 would be inconsistent with § 332(c)(7)(B)(v) because § 1983 lacks the statute’s timing constraints and would permit remedies (notably attorney’s fees under § 1988 and potentially damages) that Congress did not provide in the statutory scheme.
- Statutory remedial limits and procedural requirements may demonstrate congressional intent to make the statutory remedy exclusive, thereby precluding § 1983.

## Conclusion

The Court held that enforcement of the Telecommunications Act’s limits on local zoning decisions under § 332(c)(7) is confined to the Act’s own expedited judicial review provision, and plaintiffs may not use § 1983 to obtain damages or attorney’s fees.


City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005)