Texas Association of Business (24-3206) v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 26a0211p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
OHIO TELECOM ASSOCIATION (24-3133); TEXAS
ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS (24-3206); CTIA–THE
WIRELESS ASSOCIATION, NCTA–THE INTERNET &
TELEVISION ASSOCIATION, and USTELECOM–THE
BROADBAND ASSOCIATION (24-3252),
Petitioners,
HAMILTON RELAY, INC. (24-3133),
Intervenor,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents.
┐
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
┘
Nos. 24-3133/3206/3252
On Petitions for Rehearing En Banc
Federal Communications Commission, Agency No. 23-111.
Decided and Filed: July 31, 2026
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE, CLAY, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE,
THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, MURPHY, DAVIS,
MATHIS, BLOOMEKATZ, RITZ, and HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC: Roman Martinez, Matthew A. Brill,
Matthew T. Murchison, Christina R. Gay, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioners. Jennifer Tatel, WILKINSON BARKER KNAUER LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Intervenor. ON RESPONSE: Adam L. Sorensen, Sarah E. Citrin, Jacob M. Lewis, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., Robert B. Nicholson, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. ON BRIEF:
Thomas A. Berry, CATO INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Zac Morgan, WASHINGTON
>

-- 1 of 2 --

Nos. 24-3133/3206/3252 Ohio Telecom Ass’n et al. v. FCC et al. Page 2
LEGAL FOUNDATION, Washington, D.C., Trent McCotter, THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY
OF AMERICA, Washington, D.C., John Anderson Jung, TECHFREEDOM, Washington, D.C.,
James R. Wedeking, BOYDEN GRAY PLLC, Washington, D.C., Cody L. Reaves, TORRIDON
LAW PLLC, Washington, D.C., Eric Wessan, OFFICE OF THE IOWA ATTORNEY
GENERAL, Des Moines, Iowa, for Amici Curiae.
_________________
ORDER
_________________
A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service has voted for rehearing en
banc of this case. Under Sixth Circuit Rule 40(d), “[a] decision to grant rehearing en banc
vacates the previous opinion and judgment or order of the court, stays the mandate, and restores
the case on the docket as a pending appeal.”
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the previous decision and judgment of this Court are
vacated, the mandate is stayed, and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.
The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs and will schedule this case for
oral argument as soon as possible.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
___________________________________
Kelly L. Stephens, Clerk

-- 2 of 2 --