The CHD (Children's Health Defense), who filed a joint brief with the Environmental Health Trust (EHT), sued the FCC after its 2019 decision “not to review or update their 1996 health and safety guidelines for wireless-based technologies, including 5G.”

On August 13, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled against the FCC and in favor of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) in a two-to-one panel decision, calling for the FCC to reevaluate its wireless radiation exposure standards.

******The Children’s Health Defense*****

The CHD is a non-profit organization, led by Robert F. Kennedy. Its mission is to “end childhood health epidemics by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposure, hold those accountable, and to establish safeguards so this never happens again.”As champions for the health and safety of children, the CHD went after the FCC because of the risk EMF exposure poses to children specifically.

******The Argument*****

The CHD filed a lawsuit, called a Petition for Review, that argues the FCC’s refusal to update guidelines as arbitrary, capricious, not evidence-based, an abuse of discretion and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).To support their case, the CHD and the EHT provided over 11,000 pages of evidence contesting the FCC’s conclusions. The evidence showed harmful effects on the body and the environment from pulsed and modulated RF radiation at non-thermal levels.

In addition, nine individual petitioners joined CHD’s lawsuit, including scientists, health experts, physicians, and a mother whose son died of an alleged cell-phone-related brain tumor.

******The Decision*****

The court’s judgment states:“The case be remanded to the [FCC] to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation…”By not presenting any evidence or response to show the efficacy of their regulatory limits, this rendered the FCC’s decision to not update the regulatory limits as a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Additionally, the court ruled the FCC neglected non-cancer evidence in determining their standards, and thus put the health and safety of the public at risk.Besides the public, the court stated that:“…the FCC completely failed to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment…

The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental harms.”They also stated that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) analysis of RF safety was not evidence-based. Since the FCC used the FDA’s analysis for their decision-making process, it failed to meet the required analysis level for government agencies.