|Case Forum:||U.S. Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)|
|Keywords:||franchise, cable, Uniform Cable Act, federal Cable Act, Michigan Constitution, public comment|
Michael J. Watza | Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook |
1. Michigan Townships Association (MTA)
Counsel argues that under Article 7, § 29 of Michigan’s Constitution, a locality can deny a uniform franchise application. Comcast’s reading of the Uniform Act, that a locality’s only task is to comply with the legislature’s franchising terms, renders Article 7, § 29 null and void. The District Court properly read the Uniform Act to allow a locality to deny a franchise application, and to negotiate a voluntary agreement. Comcast’s opposite view violates the Michigan Constitution. Comcast’s argument that the State may alter terms of the franchise agreement once made, is also incorrect and unconstitutional, and would similarly force a locality into a franchise agreement with State-dictated terms. Comcast’s reading of the UA can in no way comply with the Federal Cable Act, as every franchise renewal is under the FCA’s protection, which requires public comment. The State cannot renew cable franchises without complying with FCA requirements.
It is ORDERED that the motions for partial summary judgment filed by the plaintiff, defendant Comcast, and intervening defendant State of Michigan [dkt. #41, 59, 63] are
|MSC requested LDF amicus brief?||No|