IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APP: AJllS--~---- PETITION FOR REVIEW. and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15( a), the Mozilla Corporation

Similar documents
ReCEIVED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCU CLERK

CLERK RECEIVED. JTW OR UiSThICT ØF OL tikbta. FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRC1 lit ETSY, INC., Petitioner

18 105G. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT Oi, FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMB &!IPANIC MEDIA COALITION, Petitioner CASE NO. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

B t NA L. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAl. wr FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCU] f FOR DITRIT Q QCLJMHA ILtUIt

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOTION OF AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. v. ) NOTICE OF ERRATA TO PETITION FOR REVIEW

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

BEFORE THE UNITED STATATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR REVIEW. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 402(a), 28 U.S.C. 2342(1) and 2344, and Federal

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

In the Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

BEFORE THE UNITED STATATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORU l;~]i ^i^totestodhhfw^

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 2:18-cv JAM-DB Document 15 Filed 10/26/18 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:18-cv JAM-DB Document 34 Filed 10/26/18 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND HOLD CASES IN ABEYANCE

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 07/19/2011 Page 1 of 8 [NOT SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] No

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT HELD DECEMBER 10, 2013 DECIDED APRIL 15, 2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMl\USSION Washington D.C

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 10/23/2015 Page 1 of Constitution Avenue,

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF COMPTEL

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

REPLY COMMENTS OF THE COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (CCIA)

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) OPPOSITION TO MOTION REGARDING INFORMAL COMPLAINTS

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 10/23/2015. DISTRICT OF COWMBAaijh 1

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AT&T INC. S OPPOSITION TO FCC S MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE

Case 1:18-cv LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

PETITION FOR REVIEW. Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Circuit

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC, Applicant, v. UNIVERSAL LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. Defendant-Appellant. Cause No. SC082519

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C ) ) ) )

STATE MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (1:15-cv GBL-MSN)

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554

Case 1:17-cv RMC Document 12 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission th St., S.W. Washington, D.C

Nos , , , , Argued Oct. 15, Decided Dec. 7, 2007.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORIGINAL RECEIVED 2 Z015 ) ) ) ) ) ) PETITION FOR ) REVIEW ) ) ) No DEC FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

NITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECEIVEHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PETITION FOR REVIEW

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

In the Supreme Court of the United States

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Supreme Court of the United States

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No (and consolidated case)

BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Case 4:16-cv ALM Document 10 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 779

Case PJW Doc 385 Filed 07/16/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT MOTION OF TELMATE, LLC FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 218 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 4

In The Supreme Court of the United States

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT MOTION TO INTERVENE IN PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

FOR DISTRIGT OF COLUMBIA 9fHE UNITED STATES COURT OF URAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION; BASIN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE; EAST

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Case , Document 1-1, 04/21/2017, , Page1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ORDER. Adopted: October 7, 2008 Released: October 7, 2008

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Transcription:

n~'~~:=~ teb 2. t, ZUl8 FOR DISiluc'r OF COLUMBIA ~CU~ FILED FEB 22 zo,a IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APP: AJllS--~----,CEIVED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIR UIT CLERK MOZILLA CORPORATION, v. Petitioner, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. Case No. 18-18~l051 -- PETITION FOR REVIEW Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 706,47 U.S.C. 402(a), 28 U.S.C. 2342 and 2344 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15( a), the Mozilla Corporation ("Mozilla") hereby petitions this Court for review of the final order of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") captioned in Restoring Internet Freedom, Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, WC Docket No. 17-108, FCC 17-166 (rei. Jan. 4, 2018) ("Order"). Mozilla is providing an electronic copy of the Order on compact disc with this petition. The new regulations in the Order were published in the Federal Register on February 22,2018. See 83 Fed. Reg. 7852. Mozilla filed a protective petition for review of the Order on January 16, 2018, out of abundance of caution. Protective Petition for Review at 2, Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, No. 18-1014 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 16,2018) ("Protective Pet."). That

filing was intended to ensure that Mozilla could participate in a judicial lottery if the FCC chose to forward any petition to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, as the FCC had done with petitions for review of the 2015 Open Internet Order. Id. at 2-3. The FCC filed to dismiss Mozilla s and other petitioners protective petitions and represented that it did not forward those petitions to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction at 9-10, Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, No. 18-1014 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 9, 2018). Further, it noted that petitioners would be free to file petitions for review after publication in the Federal Register of the summary of the Order. Id. at 12. Subsequently, Petitioners and Respondents filed with this Court a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal of those petitions. See Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal, Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, No. 18-1014 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 16, 2018). Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2343. In the Order, the FCC formally eliminates the rules that the FCC promulgated in 2015 and that were upheld by this Court. See Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order On Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd. 5601 (2015), aff d sub nom. United States Telecom Ass n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016). In that case, this Court held that the FCC had properly exercised its authority to reclassify broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to Title II of the Communications Act of 2

1934 and to promulgate five rules to promote Internet openness. In the Order on review here, the FCC departs from its prior reasoning and precedent, reclassifies broadband Internet access service as an information service subject to Title I of the Communications Act and eliminates the five rules, among other things. Mozilla seeks review of the Order on the grounds that it violates federal law, including, but not limited to, the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq., as amended, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and FCC regulations promulgated thereunder; abdicates the FCC s statutory mandates; is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq.; and is otherwise contrary to law. Mozilla, which participated in the proceeding below, is aggrieved by the Order. Mozilla respectfully requests that this Court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside the Order, and that it provide additional relief as may be appropriate. 3

Respectfully submitted, Jishnu Menon Denelle Dixon Mozilla Corporation 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View, CA 94041 (650) 903-0800 Dated: February 22, 2018 Markham C. Erickson Georgios Leris Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 429-3000 Counsel for Petitioner Mozilla Corporation 4

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and this Court s Rule 26.1, the Mozilla Corporation respectfully submits the following corporate disclosure statement. Mozilla Corporation is a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit corporation that has not issued shares or debt securities to the public. The Mozilla Foundation does not have any parent companies, subsidiaries, or affiliates that have issued shares or debt securities to the public. The Mozilla Foundation s mission is to ensure an open Internet accessible to all. Respectfully submitted, Jishnu Menon Denelle Dixon Mozilla Corporation 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View, CA 94041 (650) 903-0800 Dated: February 22, 2018 Markham C. Erickson Georgios Leris Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 429-3000 Counsel for Petitioner Mozilla Corporation

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Georgios Leris, hereby certify that on February 22, 2018, I caused a copy of the foregoing Petition for Review and Corporate Disclosure Statement to be served on the following counsel by the manner indicated: By First Class Mail and Electronic Mail Thomas M. Johnson, Jr. General Counsel Federal Communications Commission Room 8-A741 445 12th St., SW Washington, DC 20054 thomas.johnson@fcc.gov By First Class Mail Jefferson B. Sessions Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Georgios Leris