After being sued under the Telecommunications Act (TCA) for declining to issue a company a conditional use permit to construct a cell-phone tower, the county agreed to a consent judgment allowing construction to go forward. The consent judgment required the issuance of a conditional use permit as well as “any other permits necessary for [St. Charles Tower] to begin construction of its proposed facility.” Soon after the consent judgment was entered, the homeowners association opposing the construction intervened challenging the judgment on the grounds that it violated state law. The district court granted the homeowners association motion to intervene but then denied their motion to vacate the consent judgment. The interveners then appealed the district court’s decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, who ultimately reversed and remanded the district court’s conclusion.
The homeowners association originally intervened claiming that the consent judgment impermissibly circumvented state procedural protections and accordingly violated the Due Process Clause. The Circuit Court found that the permit wasn’t issued in compliance with the county’s land use regulations. Specifically, section 81 of the county’s land use regulations required that the county needed to put the decision issuing a conditional use permit in writing and that the writing needed to include the county’s findings, decision, and reasoning. The county did not do this. St. Charles Tower argued that land use regulations do not apply when the county is defending its final decision in court, but the Circuit Court noted that “State actors cannot enter into an agreement allowing them to act outside their legal authority, even if that agreement is styled as a ‘consent judgment’ and approved by a court.”
Consent judgments are allowed to violate state law if the remedy is necessary to rectify a violation of federal law. This is because under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution federal law trumps state law. St. Charles Tower argued that even though the consent judgment violated state law, it was only made to rectify a violation of the TCA and therefore it was valid. However, the language of the consent judgment compels “Franklin County to issue…any other permits necessary for St. Charles Tower to begin construction of its proposed facility.” Since only a conditional use permit was necessary to remedy the TCA violation, and the county’s consent judgment issued additional permits such as building permits, the consent judgment did more than remedy the federal law violation. Though state law cannot stand in the way if the consent judgment is necessary to rectify a violation of federal law, “the consent judgment at issue here goes far beyond compelling the issuance of a conditional use permit–the only permit alleged to have been illegally denied.”
St. Charles Tower, Inc. v. Kurtz, 2011 WL 2535530 (8th Cir. 6/28/2011).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/11/06/102412P.pdf
