WASHINGTON-The Supreme Court this session has before it three mobile-phone health cases, a sign of things to come in a Digital Age where technology outpaces the law and raises novel questions for the courts.
The high court, which returned to work last week, must decide whether to hear three appeals of radio-frequency radiation exposure guidelines adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1996. The parties, among other things, claim the mobile-phone radiation standard does not adequately protect public health. In particular, they claim FCC mobile-phone radiation guidelines do not cover non-thermal health effects.
The wireless industry and many scientists insist mobile phones cannot cause non-thermal health effects, despite the fact that some studies in recent years purport to have found evidence of DNA breaks, genetic damage and increased cancers in rodents exposed to mobile-phone radiation.
Petitions for writ of certiorari have been filed by the EMR Network, the Cellular Phone Task Force and Maryland lawyer Michael Worsham.
In February, a federal appeals court in New York upheld FCC mobile-phone safety rules.
“The Court of Appeals’ decision sanctioned Congress’s and the FCC pre-emption of location control over, and ignored real evidence concerning, the actual dilatory health effects of widespread cellular phone transmission on a portion of the public who have been impacted beyond repair,” the Cellular Phone Taskforce stated in its Supreme Court brief.
NextWave Telecom Inc., having suffered legal setbacks in its attempt to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reclaiming the bankrupt firm’s nationwide collection of mobile-phone licenses, also is seeking relief from the high court.
Last week, the Supreme Court decided not to take up two telecom cases. In one case, citizens in Charlotte, Vt., argued FCC rules do not pre-empt local zoning regulations insofar as interference to household appliances from a 200-foot tower used to transmit signals for an FM radio station, Verizon Wireless and local emergency services.
The high court also refused to review a class action lawsuit against America Online, a top Internet service provider that is expanding into wireless data. Subscribers, who argued AOL should be considered a common carrier, alleged the firm failed to protect user privacy and levied unjust charges against them.
In an unusual move, three Vermont lawmakers in Congress filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of their constituents in the interference case.
“We are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to hear the arguments that would have been presented by citizens of Vermont on the towers,” said Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and James Jeffords (R-Vt.) and Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) in a joint statement.
The three lawmakers this year and in past years have pushed for legislation that would overturn a provision in the 1996 telecommunications act that established a national antenna siting policy, which pre-empted local regulation of health effects so long as mobile phone operators are in compliance with FCC radiation exposure guidelines.
The Vermont delegation, as well as Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), sponsored legislation this year to earmark millions of dollars for government research on mobile-phone health research.
Requests for Supreme Court review of the FCC’s mobile-phone radiation standard come at a time of renewed mobile-phone health litigation. Christopher Newman, a 41-year-old neurologist in Maryland, claims in an $800 million lawsuit that heavy and long-time cell-phone use caused his malignant brain tumor.
The defendants in the case-Motorola Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., SBC Communications Inc., the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association and the Telecommunications Industry Association-filed to get the suit moved from state court to federal court.
On Sept. 19, Motorola asked a federal appeals court in Baltimore to throw out the suit. A week later, Joanne Suder, the Baltimore lawyer representing Newman and other clients-including a former Motorola technician-who plan to file additional mobile-phone cancer lawsuits, asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to remand the case to state court.
“I think we’re dealing with a limited number of claims that have been heard before and judged in a number of cases to have no basis in fact,” said Norman Sandler, director of global strategic issues for Motorola.
Another lawsuit in New Orleans claims wireless carriers, manufacturers and distributors failed to protect consumers against alleged mobile-phone health risks.
Jo-Anne Basile, vice president for industry and external relations for CTIA, said the association does not comment on litigation. Basile did say she expects phones sold later this year and early next year to include detailed information on mobile-phone radiation data.
