Whether the preemption by 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of any State remedy for injury by telecommunications facilities without providing a substitute federal remedy violates the constitutional right of access to courts and conflicts with a century of Supreme Court jurisprudence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Radio frequency (“RF”) radiation has been increasing exponentially with the proliferation of cell towers and antennas. Although such radiation has injured and displaced millions, no claim for injury by RF radiation has been permitted to go to trial in the United States since 1996, and no zoning board or city council has been permitted to take testimony about such radiation into account when considering applications for such facilities. A Congressional prohibition against consideration of “environmental effects” has been persistently understood as a prohibition against consideration of “health effects.” Petitioners’ desperate situations go unremedied and they suffer further injuries and losses with no haven in sight but this Court. Without any avenue of redress for their injuries and property losses, Petitioners requested a declaratory judgment that the preemption with respect to the “environmental effects of radio frequency emissions” in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TCA”), 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), and laws enacted by their City and their State in deference to that preemption, violate due process, free speech, the right to petition, the right of access to courts, and constitute a taking without just compensation, or in the alternative a judgment that “environmental effects” does not mean “health effects” in 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). The questions presented for review are: 1. Whether the preemption by 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of any State remedy for injury by li QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued telecommunications facilities without providing a substitute federal remedy violates the constitutional right of access to courts and conflicts with a century of Supreme Court jurisprudence. 2. Whether, consistent with its ordinary meaning, as well as its meaning in every other federal statute in which it occurs, the term “environment effects” in 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)Giv) should be interpreted to mean “effects on the environment” and not “effects on human health,” thereby restoring to all Americans their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property and adhering to the principle that statutes should be construed to avoid rendering them unconstitutional.