Legal Strategy: Repealing the “Gag Clause” with the First, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments

Section 704(b) of the Telecom Act: A Federal Gag on RF Health Concerns

Section 704(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 – often dubbed the “gag clause” – expressly preempts state and local governments from regulating wireless tower placement based on health or environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) emissions, so long as the facilities comply with FCC RF exposure limitsassets.noviams.com. In practice, “environmental” has been interpreted to include health concernsrfsafe.com. This means local zoning boards cannot deny a cell tower permit due to health risks, and any evidence of health effects is excluded from consideration. Even if a town gathers credible data that a proposed tower might pose cancer risks or other harms, officials are forbidden from citing those risks as a reason to deny or condition the permitrfsafe.comrfsafe.com. At public hearings, citizens who raise health objections are routinely told such concerns are preempted by federal law – in effect, local authorities are gagged from even listening to or recording health-related testimonyrfsafe.com.

Codified at 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv), Section 704(b) was inserted at the telecom industry’s behest to “streamline” wireless rollout. It achieved that by nullifying a core local power: the police power to protect public health. Traditionally, communities could zone to protect residents’ welfare, but under Section 704, localities cannot even consider the “environmental” (health) impact of antenna radiationrfsafe.com. The law also bars courts from hearing health-based arguments in tower casesrfsafe.com. Effectively, the FCC’s 1996 RF limits – which address only thermal heating effects – were enshrined as the de facto safety standard nationwide, while the growing body of science on non-thermal biological impacts was legally sidelinedrfsafe.com.

The result has been a profound federal intrusion into traditional local authority. Section 704(b) is often criticized as unconstitutional, violating both federalism and free speech principles. Legal scholars note it was an “unprecedented” usurpation of local zoning and public health powersrfsafe.com. By dictating to states and cities that they “may not regulate” based on RF health effects, Congress arguably went beyond preemption and into commandeering state decision-making. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment reserves to states the power to legislate for health and safety, yet §704(b) tells them “you can’t use health or environmental concerns to limit where a tower goes.” If that’s not a federal override of state/local autonomy, what is?rfsafe.com Similarly, the First Amendment implications are stark: citizens have the right to petition their government for redress of grievances, but if health evidence cannot even be heard in a public forum or included in the administrative record, the spirit of the First Amendment is violatedrfsafe.com. In short, Section 704 functions as a federal gag order, benefitting industry by preventing communities from even acknowledging RF risksrfsafe.com.

Summary: Section 704(b) (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv)) preempts local RF health oversight, prohibiting any consideration of health/environmental effects in wireless siting decisionsassets.noviams.com. This “gag clause” stripped municipalities of their usual power to protect citizens, and has faced growing criticism as a violation of constitutional principles of property rights, free speech, and state sovereigntyrfsafe.com.

The Fifth Amendment Takings Strategy: RF Emissions as a Physical Invasion

The Primary Offensive in challenging Section 704 is a Fifth Amendment takings claim. The Takings Clause provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The core argument here is novel yet firmly grounded in precedent: federally authorized, continuous RF emissions beaming onto specific private properties amount to a physical invasion – essentially an “RF easement” – for which the Constitution requires compensation. In plainer terms, if the government (through the FCC and Section 704) enables a telecom carrier to irradiate your home and land with RF 24/7 and forbids you (or your town) from stopping it, then the government has taken a valuable property right (the right to be free from harmful invasions) without compensationrfsafe.comrfsafe.com.

This theory finds strong support in takings law precedents dealing with intangible intrusions. The Supreme Court has long recognized that physical invasions need not be tangible solid objects – noise, vibrations, and other energy forces can constitute takings if they directly interfere with the use of landrfsafe.comrfsafe.com. Key cases include:

• United States v. Causby (1946): Low-flying military aircraft repeatedly roared over a chicken farm, creating unbearable noise that destroyed the owner’s use of his property. The Court held this was a compensable taking – effectively an avigation easement through the property’s airspacerfsafe.com. The government had to pay for “occupying” the airspace with noise and aviation hazards.

• Griggs v. Allegheny County (1962): Regular airline overflights from a new airport runway so interfered with a homeowner’s quiet enjoyment that the Court ruled an easement had been taken. The county was required to compensate the owner for the de facto servitude imposed on his propertyrfsafe.com.

• Richards v. Washington Terminal Co. (1914): A railroad’s tunnel vent directed dense smoke and gases onto a neighboring property. The Supreme Court distinguished widespread general effects from a “direct, peculiar and substantial” invasion focused on one property – and held that, where the harm was specific and significant, the property owner was entitled to compensationsupreme.justia.comrfsafe.com. Congress cannot authorize a private company to create a nuisance easement over your land without paying for itsupreme.justia.com.

These cases are templates for the RF context. Like noise or smoke, RF radiation is a physical phenomenon – electromagnetic energy – that can be directed, concentrated, and continuously “trespass” onto a parcelrfsafe.com. A cell site’s antennas create RF fields that do not stop at the property boundary; they penetrate homes, yards, and bodies. Under Section 704 and FCC licenses, this occurs with federal authorization and with locals powerless to prevent itrfsafe.com. In effect, the government has granted telecom companies an easement to continually occupy private land with invisible RF emissions.

Importantly, even if the intruding agent is intangible, it counts as a physical occupation if it is continuous and oriented at the property. The RF invasion is not merely transient or arising from the property owner’s own actions – it is externally generated and government-enabled. One might analogize it to a laser beam or floodlight continuously shining into someone’s house from a neighbor’s yard by federal fiat.

Beyond Causby/Griggs/Richards, recent jurisprudence on per se takings bolsters this strategy. In Loretto v. Teleprompter (1982), the Court held that any permanent physical occupation authorized by government – no matter how small – is a per se takingsupremecourt.gov. That case famously involved a tiny cable TV box and wires affixed to a building by mandate of law. The intrusion was minor in size, but because it was a permanent physical presence, the Court required compensation. By analogy, RF radiation saturating a property 24/7 is a permanent physical presence (albeit electromagnetic rather than a metal box). Indeed, unlike the silent cable, RF waves actively interact with the environment (and living tissue, as discussed later).

Likewise, in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021), the Supreme Court struck down a California regulation that gave union organizers limited access to farm owners’ land. Even though the access was intermittent (up to 3 hours per day, 120 days a year), the Court ruled this “appropriates a right to invade the growers’ property” and thus constitutes a per se physical taking requiring compensationsupremecourt.govsupremecourt.gov. The government had essentially granted third parties a license to physically occupy private land, which is per se compensable. By the same token, Section 704 and the FCC’s actions have granted wireless carriers a right to physically invade private premises with RF emissions at any and all times. The invasion may be invisible, but it is physical energy and is continuous – akin to allowing a third party’s operations to permeate your land day and night.

Takings Theory Summarized: When the government authorizes a continuous, directed, and parcel-specific physical invasion of private property – even by an intangible force like electromagnetic waves – it must provide just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The law treats such an invasion like an easement across your propertyrfsafe.com. Section 704(b) sets the stage for exactly this: federal law invites telecom facilities to beam RF onto unwilling neighbors’ homes, while blocking the neighbors’ ability to stop it. The “RF easement” is established without consent or compensation. Under Causby, Griggs, Richards, Loretto, Cedar Point, and related cases, this scenario triggers the Takings Clause.

Why this strategy is powerful: It does not require overturning Section 704 outright; rather, it leverages the gap in the statute. Congress said localities can’t protect you from RF – but Congress did not say you lose your property rights without compensation. The Takings Clause steps in as a constitutional safeguard. If a court finds that a “permanent physical occupation” by RF fields has occurred, the government (or possibly the carrier as a deputized actor) would owe the property owner compensation. That in turn forces a reckoning: either the industry must start paying affected owners (a potentially huge financial burden) or the policy will have to change (e.g. by allowing more local control to avoid those liabilities). Thus, a win on takings could accomplish indirectly what Section 704 forbids directly – incentivizing safer siting practices or updated standards through the pressure of compensation.

Continuous, Parcel-Specific Invasion – Evidence is Key: To succeed, a takings claimant should assemble evidence showing that RF emissions are focused on their property in a concrete way. This means technical RF engineering data to demonstrate that, for example, antenna Sector A of a nearby tower is pointed directly at the claimant’s second-floor bedroom, with a main lobe that causes significantly elevated field intensity on that parcel (beyond ambient background). Tools include antenna pattern plots, down-tilt and azimuth specifications, and on-site RF measurements over timerfsafe.com. If the claimant can show a “peculiar, direct, and substantial” invasion of their property (as opposed to just city-wide ambient levels), it mirrors the Richards scenario and strengthens the caserfsafe.com. Additionally, documenting the impact on property use or value is important: e.g. an appraiser’s report that the property’s value dropped due to the proximity of the tower and RF exposure, or evidence that certain rooms are now unusable for their intended purpose (such as a bedroom where measured RF levels disrupt sleep or pose perceived health risks). This goes to demonstrating a “direct and immediate interference” with the parcel, satisfying even a Causby-style analysis if not per se.

In summary, the Fifth Amendment RF takings strategy reframes the RF safety issue from a forbidden health regulation topic into a property rights issue. It asks courts to recognize that Section 704(b) + FCC licensing = a government-authorized physical invasion of private homes by electromagnetic radiation, which the Fifth Amendment does not permit without compensationrfsafe.comrfsafe.com. This is the tip of the spear because it aligns with a constitutional value (protection of property) the current judiciary strongly enforces. A court need not find that RF is “harmful” (a point regulators contest); it need only find that property has been occupied by an outside force. However, as we discuss next, showing that RF radiation is not just harmless or trivial can bolster the court’s willingness to see it as a compensable taking.

Embedding Science: RF Fields as a Material, Biologically Active Invasion

Proving a taking legally does not require proving the RF emissions cause health damage – the claim is about physical presence and use of property. Nonetheless, courts are more likely to intervene where the invading substance or force is known to be “biologically potent rather than benign.”rfsafe.com In other words, if you can show that what’s entering the land (RF radiation) has real, tangible effects on people or the environment, a judge will be less inclined to view it as an insignificant trespass. Thus, the latest science on RF bioeffects becomes a crucial part of the narrative, establishing “physical materiality.”

Landmark Scientific Findings

• WHO 2025 Systematic Reviews: The World Health Organization recently undertook a comprehensive evaluation of RF health effects. In 2025, a monograph of 12 systematic reviews was published, covering outcomes from cancer to fertility to neurological effects. Notably, the WHO-commissioned review of chronic animal experiments found “high” certainty evidence linking RF exposure to specific tumors: malignant schwannomas of the heart and gliomas (brain tumors) in male ratsrfsafe.com. There were also “moderate” certainty findings for adrenal gland tumors and other effectsrfsafe.com. In plain terms, experts reviewing dozens of studies concluded with high confidence that long-term RF radiation caused cancer in lab animals. These results significantly strengthened the evidence since 2011 (when the WHO’s IARC classified RF as *“possibly” carcinogenic). In fact, the 2025 animal data would support upgrading RF to a higher risk category. The WHO reviews on male fertility and developmental outcomes likewise found “clear evidence” of adverse effects below current exposure limitspmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, undermining the assumption that existing standards are protective.

• U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) Study (Final report 2018): The NTP (a federal interagency program) conducted a $30 million, 10-year study exposing rodents to cell phone RF signals (900 MHz, 2G/3G modulation) over their lifetimes. The final results were eye-opening: “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity was found in male rats, manifested as malignant schwannomas of the heart, and “some evidence” of malignant gliomas of the brainntp.niehs.nih.gov. Female rats and mice showed equivocal or no evidence at those exposures, but the consistency in male rats was notable. These peer-reviewed findings prompted the NTP’s lead scientists to state that the link between RF and tumors in male rats is real, shattering the notion that non-ionizing radiation is completely innocuous. The study also found increased DNA damage in exposed animals’ brain tissues and blood cellsntp.niehs.nih.gov, indicating a mechanism for how cancer or other harms could develop. In essence, the premier U.S. toxicology lab confirmed that chronic RF exposure at non-thermal levels caused biological damage and cancer in mammals.

• Ramazzini Institute Study (2018): Almost concurrently with NTP, Italy’s Ramazzini Institute completed a large-scale lifetime study – but using much lower, environment-like RF exposures (reflecting emissions from a 1.8 GHz cell tower). Even at exposure levels orders of magnitude lower than NTP’s (far-field at 50 V/m maximum, which is within current public limits), Ramazzini found a statistically significant increase in heart schwannomas in RF-exposed male ratspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. There was also an uptick in brain glial tumors in female rats (not statistically significant due to low incidence)pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. The researchers explicitly noted that their findings “reinforce the results of the NTP study,” because both studies observed the same rare tumors (schwannomas and gliomas) in ratspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. The convergence of these two independent studies – one high-dose near-field, one low-dose far-field – provides compelling evidence that the RF emissions from cell phones and towers have carcinogenic potential. (It’s also worth noting that these tumor types are analogous to acoustic neuromas and gliomas observed in some human epidemiological studies of long-term cell phone userspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.)

• Mechanistic and Other Biological Evidence: How can RF cause such effects without heating? A growing body of research points to non-thermal mechanisms. One leading hypothesis is the “ion forced-oscillation” mechanism, whereby oscillating electromagnetic fields (especially pulsed and polarized fields like those from modern digital signals) can dysregulate voltage-gated ion channels in cell membranesrfsafe.com. In simple terms, RF fields can subtly alter the electrical charges across cell membranes, leading to downstream effects like calcium influx, neurotransmitter imbalances, or cardiac rhythm disturbances. This can set off cellular stress pathways. Indeed, a 2016 review of 100 studies found that in 93 of them RF exposure induced oxidative stress – excessive production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in cellsrfsafe.com. Oxidative stress is a well-known pathway to DNA damage, inflammation, and a host of diseases (including cancer, neurodegeneration, and reproductive harm). Later reviews have corroborated that RF at sub-thermal levels can trigger oxidative damage and other biochemical changesrfsafe.com. Even the U.S. Air Force and NASA research historically observed cognitive and behavioral changes in animals exposed to low-level microwaves, supporting that these fields interact with living systems in meaningful waysrfsafe.comrfsafe.com. In a medical irony, extremely low-intensity RF and electric fields are now being deliberately used in therapies to slow cancer cell growth (e.g. Tumor Treating Fields for brain tumors) – a tacit acknowledgment that subthermal EM fields do affect biologyrfsafe.comrfsafe.com. All this science drives home the point: RF emissions are not just harmless rays; they are a physical force that penetrates matter and can alter biological processes.

Implication for Takings: Presenting this science in a takings case helps the court perceive the RF invasion as “a material, directed physical force that isn’t trivial.”rfsafe.com It counters any argument that “it’s just radio waves, part of the air, nothing to worry about.” Instead, the judge is shown that RF radiation is more like smoke or chemical effluent – it has real effects and thus should be taken seriously when evaluating a physical invasion claim. As one litigation guide noted, citing the WHO 2025 review, NTP, and Ramazzini “help courts recognize RF as a material physical force, not a harmless abstraction.”rfsafe.com The goal is to put RF in the same category as the low-flying plane in Causby or the factory smoke in Richards: an external physical agent of harm or risk imposed on the property. This makes it much easier for a court to say: yes, forcing this on someone’s property (without their consent) is an affront to property rights that deserves a remedy.

In sum, the recent science provides powerful factual support that strengthens the Fifth Amendment approach. It shows that what Section 704 allows onto people’s land is not some abstract, innocuous phenomenon, but a physical intrusion with known, measurable impacts on living tissue and property value. That can only help in court. And independently, it bolsters the moral and political case for reforming the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits, which the DC Circuit in 2021 found were inadequately justified in light of current evidence (more on that shortly).

First Amendment Argument: Restoring the Right to Tell the Truth

While the Fifth Amendment takings claim is the spearhead, a First Amendment challenge provides a valuable flank. It targets the procedural gag imposed by Section 704(b) in local proceedings. In America, we generally expect that citizens can speak openly to their government and that public decisions can consider truthful information, especially on matters of health and safety. Section 704(b) distorts that norm by excluding an entire category of truthful speech (health evidence) from local hearings and records. This raises issues under the First Amendment’s Right to Petition and Free Speech clauses.

Right to Petition: This facet of the First Amendment protects the ability of individuals and groups to appeal to government for redress of grievances. Zoning hearings and city council meetings are quintessential forums for petitioning local government. When residents present studies about RF radiation or testify that a tower made their family sick, they are petitioning their government for protection. If the local board responds, “Sorry, we cannot even hear or officially acknowledge your testimony because federal law forbids us from considering it,” the citizens’ petition right is arguably being infringed. As one analysis put it, if health concerns cannot even be heard in court or at a city council, the spirit of the First Amendment is violatedrfsafe.com. The content of the speech (RF health risks) is being discriminated against and essentially censored in the decision-making process. Even if people are allowed to speak in a perfunctory way, the fact that officials say “we will ignore that, it’s not allowed here” is deeply problematic. It sends a chilling message that certain truths are off-limits for public discourse when big telecom projects are at stake.

Compelled Misinformation vs. Prohibition on Information: There is a parallel to be drawn with cases where industry has tried to use the First Amendment to block the dissemination of health information. For example, in CTIA v. City of Berkeley (2019), the wireless industry sued to stop Berkeley’s ordinance that required retailers to hand consumers a brief notice about how to use cell phones safely (per FCC guidance). CTIA argued this compelled disclosure violated their free speech. The Ninth Circuit disagreed – applying the Zauderer standard (for factual, non-misleading commercial disclosures) – and upheld Berkeley’s right-to-know law as a permissible, truthful public safety noticefreespeechforpeople.orgfreespeechforpeople.org. The significance here: the courts recognized that providing truthful, non-misleading information about RF safety was in the public interest and not an undue burden on speech. By contrast, Section 704’s regime effectively does the opposite – it suppresses truthful information about RF risks in local decision-making. If a city attempted to warn residents or consider residents’ health evidence, industry could cry “preemption!” and shut it down. In a sense, Section 704(b) facilitates a one-way muzzle: it silences communities and even forces local governments to pretend RF is safe as long as FCC says so, regardless of contrary evidence.

A First Amendment challenge to §704(b) would assert that the federal government cannot constitutionally bar state and local governments from receiving and considering truthful, non-misleading information relevant to their decisions. When Congress says “you shall not even take into account the health effects,” it is dictating an information blackout that serves no one – except perhaps the industry in avoiding opposition. One could argue this is a form of content-based restriction (only health-related content is barred) and even a viewpoint discrimination (since effectively only positive or neutral views on RF safety are allowed to influence outcomes, while critical views are forbidden to have any effect). In the administrative law context, it undermines the very idea of an informed record for decision-making.

To be clear, courts so far have been wary of broad First Amendment arguments in this area. In the Tenth Circuit’s Santa Fe Alliance case (2019), residents argued that their speech rights were violated by not being able to effectively oppose towers on health grounds. The court dismissed those claims on procedural grounds (standing/ripeness), not reaching the merits, and noted that residents could still speak, it’s just that the local government couldn’t act on itrfsafe.com. However, that formal logic misses the practical point: speech that cannot be considered is speech that is effectively silenced. The right to petition is hollow if the government is forbidden to listen or respond.

Strategic Use: Even if a First Amendment facial challenge to §704(b) might be an uphill battle (given courts could label it “just a permissible limit on regulatory criteria”), it serves as a strong advocacy tool. It highlights the undemocratic nature of the gag clause. In litigation, a First Amendment count can be pled alongside the takings claim to paint a fuller picture of how Section 704 injures both property rights and civic rights. And in public discourse, it resonates: should the government be telling your town what information it’s allowed to consider? That sounds like censorship, because it is.

Moreover, First Amendment principles can guide municipal strategy even under the gag clause. For instance, some local boards choose to allow citizens to speak on health issues for the record, with a disclaimer that “we can’t legally base our decision on this.” This at least preserves the speakers’ First Amendment rights and creates a record of community concerns. (It might also lay groundwork for a future challenge, showing that excluding such evidence was arbitrary if it’s highly relevant.) Municipal attorneys have to balance risk – there’s a fear that if too much health talk happens and a permit is denied, the carrier will sue claiming de facto violation of §704. But simply hearing the public and entering studies into the record could itself be cast as a protected activity. The First Amendment argument buttresses the idea that local governments should not face punishment for merely hearing and cataloguing health evidence, even if they ultimately decide on other grounds.

CTIA v. Berkeley, mentioned above, also provides a shield: it affirms that factual, accurate RF health information (e.g., “keeping phone in pocket may exceed FCC limits”) is not considered misleading or improper speech by the courtsfreespeechforpeople.orgfreespeechforpeople.org. By analogy, residents providing truthful testimony about RF hazards are engaging in protected speech on a matter of public concern – the kind of speech at the core of the First Amendment.

In summary, the First Amendment flank argues that Section 704’s exclusion of health evidence is an unconstitutional restriction on speech and the right to petition. This may not immediately nullify the law (courts could interpret the law as only limiting officials, not censoring citizens per se), but it underscores the illegitimacy of suppressing truth. At a minimum, it can encourage practices that mitigate the gag (like openly acknowledging health submissions, or requiring disclosure of RF risks as conditions if legally feasible, citing Zauderer logic). It keeps the issue of health effects “speakable” in the public arena, which is vital for broader change.

Tenth Amendment Argument: Reviving State Power Post-Murphy (and Loper Bright)

The Tenth Amendment and related “anti-commandeering” doctrine provide another flank in the strategy. The Tenth Amendment reserves to states (and by extension, local governments via state delegation) those powers not expressly given to the feds. One of those traditional powers is local land-use regulation for public health and safety. Section 704(b) can be viewed as Congress commandeering state regulatory processes by dictating what state or local officials can not do in their zoning capacity. Unlike typical federal preemption (where the feds set a substantive standard that displaces state law), here Congress did not set any federal health standard beyond saying “if it meets FCC guidelines, health is off the table.” It simply banned the states from acting in an entire domain (health-based regulation), without providing an alternate federal regulation of that aspect (since FCC’s guidelines themselves have been criticized as outdated and incomplete). This structure is susceptible to an anti-commandeering challenge under modern jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Murphy v. NCAA is on point. In Murphy, the Court struck down a federal law (PASPA) that prohibited states from authorizing sports gambling. The law didn’t create a federal gambling regime; it just told states “you may not legalize this.” The Court held that this crossed the line: Congress cannot simply command states what not to legislate – that violates the anti-commandeering principlecongress.gov. Justice Alito explained that while Congress can regulate commerce directly, it cannot issue orders to state legislatures to refrain from regulation (or to regulate in a specific way). PASPA was deemed unconstitutional because it “dictate[d] what a state legislature may and may not do” – which is essentially to commandeer state lawmaking authoritycongress.gov. Importantly, the Court noted the difference between permissible preemption (where federal law regulates private actors and state law is preempted to the extent of conflict) and impermissible commandeering (where federal law commands the state to govern its citizens in a particular manner, or not govern at all)congress.govcongress.gov.

Section 704(b) has a very similar structure to PASPA’s anti-authorization clause. It tells states and localities: “you shall not regulate the placement, construction, or modification of wireless facilities on the basis of RF environmental effects.” It does not replace that potential state regulation with any comprehensive federal health regulation (the FCC’s role is essentially to set a minimum safety limit, but not to handle local siting decisions case-by-case). In effect, §704 says to states: “Even if you perceive a risk to your residents and would normally act, you are forbidden from doing so”. This is arguably Congress instructing state and local governments on what not to do in their own jurisdiction – a hallmark of commandeering. A commentator noted after Murphy that the decision “reaffirms the anti-commandeering doctrine as an outer limit on Congress’s power to preempt state law” and that it could “call into question federal laws that impermissibly commandeer state regulatory authority by dictating what states can and cannot do.”congress.gov Section 704(b) fits that description snugly.

One counter-argument is that §704 is framed as a preemption clause (and indeed courts, like the Second Circuit in Cellular Phone Taskforce v. FCC (2000), upheld it as an exercise of the Commerce Power and Supremacy Clause preemptionrfsafe.com). The Second Circuit reasoned that Congress was not forcing states to enforce a federal program, but simply prohibiting them from interfering with a federal objective (nationwide wireless deployment). However, Murphy clarified that a prohibition on state action can still be an unconstitutional command. The key is whether the federal law regulates private actors (which is valid) or regulates the state’s regulation of private actors (which is suspect). Section 704(b) falls in the latter category: it doesn’t say “telecom companies have a federal right to do X” in so many words – instead it says “state regulators shall not do Y (consider health).” There is a fine distinction, but an important one after Murphy. Essentially, §704 tells state governments how to govern (or rather, how not to govern) in their zoning decisions. That starts to look like Congress “pulling the strings” of state local officials, which the anti-commandeering rule forbids.

The potential impact of Loper Bright (a pending or recently decided Supreme Court case likely limiting or overturning Chevron deference to agency interpretations) could also come into play. If courts are less inclined to defer to agencies, the FCC’s expansive reading of its authority and of §704 might be curtailed. For example, perhaps courts would scrutinize whether Congress clearly intended to bar any consideration of health, or whether that was an FCC gloss. (In truth, the statute’s language is pretty direct, but a post-Loper Bright judiciary might be generally more willing to question agency-favoring status quo and more open to constitutional avoidance doctrines.) In short, the combination of Murphy’s federalism revival and a post-Chevron judicial climate could make courts more receptive than before to arguments that Section 704(b) overstepped constitutional bounds.

To date, no court has invalidated §704 on Tenth Amendment grounds. But the issue has not been squarely revisited since Murphy. A legal strategy here would articulate: Congress can preempt state RF regulations by setting its own standards or occupying the field, but what it cannot do is simply order states, “Do not even think about regulating this way,” while leaving a regulatory void in its wake. That commandeers state legislative and administrative processes to serve a federal goal (rapid deployment) without Congress itself doing the regulatory work. The anti-commandeering doctrine exists to prevent exactly that scenario of “federal blue pencil” striking out state laws or powers.

Even if courts remain reluctant to strike down §704(b) outright, raising the Tenth Amendment argument has strategic value. It frames the narrative as state and local governments fighting for their rightful authority to protect citizens. It puts pressure on Congress – a Congress that has, in other contexts, been sensitive to federalism (especially with many members championing “states’ rights”). If the judiciary hints at discomfort with §704(b) as commandeering, Congress might proactively rethink it. Or, success on the takings front might prompt the industry to lobby Congress for changes (e.g. giving back some local control to avoid the takings payouts), and at that time the Tenth Amendment argument adds another reason to reform the law.

In summary, the Tenth Amendment flank contends that Section 704(b) is not a normal preemption, but an unconstitutional commandeering of state regulatory authority, especially in light of Murphy v. NCAA. This argument reinforces the notion that the federal “gag clause” is an aberration in our constitutional structure, and restoring local ability to at least consider health is not only sound policy but required by basic federalism principles.

Federal Inaction on RF Safety: FCC’s Failure and D.C. Circuit Remand

No chapter on RF legal strategy is complete without noting the regulatory vacuum that has persisted at the federal level – a vacuum Section 704 makes all the more dangerous. The FCC’s RF exposure guidelines have not had a major update since 1996, despite a sea of new research and the proliferation of new technologies (3G, 4G, 5G, small cells on every corner, Wi-Fi everywhere, etc.). In 2019, the FCC (under then-Chairman Ajit Pai) issued a decision declining to tighten or revise the RF limits, basically saying “the current limits (from ’96) are still protective.” This decision was challenged by health and environmental groups.

In Environmental Health Trust (EHT) et al. v. FCC (D.C. Circuit, 2021), the court delivered a striking rebuke to the FCC. The D.C. Circuit found that the FCC had failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that the 1996 limits adequately protect human health, especially regarding non-cancer effects. The court said the FCC’s conclusory statements did not meet “even the low threshold of reasoned analysis” required in light of the extensive evidence submittedpropublica.org. Notably, the judges pointed out the FCC record contained substantial scientific evidence of cognitive and neurological effects, reproductive harms, and impacts on children, none of which the FCC addressed. The commission “ignored substantive evidence of potential environmental harms” and gave no explanation for how or why it deemed the limits sufficient for exposures to things like 5G signals or long-term use of devices by childrenpropublica.org. The court wrote that the FCC’s order was “bereft of any explanation” as to why its guidelines remain adequate despite the new evidencepropublica.org. This was a legal way of saying the FCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

The D.C. Circuit remanded the decision back to the FCC for further review or better explanationpropublica.org. Importantly, the court did not take a position that RF is unsafe – it simply demanded the agency show its work and engage with the science. Yet, as of now (several years later), the FCC has not issued any substantive response or updatepropublica.org. The issue remains in limbo. The FDA (which the FCC often says it relies on for health input) isn’t actively working on it eitherpropublica.org. In effect, the federal regulators are frozen – neither strengthening standards nor admitting a need to, despite the court remand and mounting scientific pressure.

This ongoing failure of the FCC to update RF health rules is part of the backdrop that judges will be aware of. It reinforces our arguments in two ways:

1. On Takings: If a judge is on the fence thinking “Well, maybe the FCC knows best and RF is harmless,” the EHT v. FCC case undercuts that deference. A federal court has formally said the FCC did not justify its stance on safety for non-cancer risks and environmental effects. Thus, if an RF takings case is in court, the judge cannot simply assume “the federal standard means it’s safe, so this invasion is negligible.” In fact, one of the anticipated defenses in a takings case – “the FCC says it’s safe, so how can it be a taking?” – can be countered by citing the D.C. Circuit remand. The proper rebuttal: Takings is about property invasion, not safety per se. And regardless, the FCC’s assurances of safety have been found lacking in reasoned support. The court’s remand shows the federal framework is in flux and that “the science is not settled” in the way the FCC claimedrfsafe.com. So a takings court should not rely blindly on outdated FCC guidelines as a measure of whether harm is occurring.

2. On the Need for Reform: The FCC’s inaction despite a court order highlights the dysfunction in the current system. Normally, if local governments can’t act, one would hope the federal government is actively protecting the public. But here we have neither: locals gagged, feds asleep at the wheel or captured by industry influence. This reality can influence judicial attitude – courts may sense that leaving everything to the FCC (as Section 704 intended) is not working, and thus be more sympathetic to those seeking judicial remedies (like takings claimants or others). It can also influence legislative momentum: it is increasingly indefensible for Congress to maintain a gag on localities when the federal guard dog isn’t barking. Indeed, bipartisan concern has started to emerge, with some state commissions (New Hampshire 5G report) and even Republican governors (Wyoming’s governor in 2022) urging the FCC to revisit its limitspropublica.org. The ground is shifting.

In summary, EHT v. FCC (2021) stands as a judicial acknowledgment that the FCC’s RF safety guidelines are likely outdated and insufficient, and that the commission has failed to engage with current sciencepropublica.org. This directly feeds our strategy: it strengthens the case that RF emissions are a serious matter (the D.C. Circuit wouldn’t remand if it were all junk science), and it removes any notion that our efforts are trying to undermine a perfectly well-oiled federal regime. On the contrary, our legal strategy (takings, First, Tenth Amendments) seeks to fill the void and protect citizens in a landscape where the FCC has abdicated effective responsibility.

Why Takings Is the Sharpest Tool – and How Success Catalyzes Change

We have outlined three constitutional approaches – Fifth (takings), First (speech/petition), and Tenth (state powers) – to attack the RF safety gap left by Section 704’s preemption. All three work in tandem in advocacy. But if one asks, which is most likely to break through first in court?, the answer is the Fifth Amendment takings claim. Here’s why:

• Judicial Receptivity: The current Supreme Court has shown a strong interest in protecting property rights. Decisions like Cedar Point (2021) expanded the definition of per se takings, and the Court has repeatedly emphasized the fundamental nature of the right to exclude others from one’s propertysupremecourt.govsupremecourt.gov. By framing the RF issue as a physical occupation, we align with a doctrine this Court is eager to enforce. In contrast, broad First Amendment or Tenth Amendment arguments might face more skepticism or be seen as politically charged. The takings route, however, can be approached as a technical question of property law and precedent – something judges can grasp without delving into more controversial policy judgments.

• Avoiding the “Safety” Minefield: A takings case doesn’t require the court to declare that RF causes cancer or overhaul regulatory standards – it simply asks the court to acknowledge a property invasion and order compensation. This is a more judicially modest demand than, say, invalidating Section 704 entirely (as a Tenth Amendment win might) or forcing the FCC to rewrite its health rules. It plays to the courts’ traditional role of arbitrating specific disputes and harms. A judge can remedy a taking (with a compensation award) for a particular plaintiff without feeling like they are setting health policy for the nation. Yet, the ripple effects can be significant (see next point).

• Leverage for Policy Change: If even a few property owners succeed in takings claims – especially if upheld on appeal – the floodgates could open. Telecom companies (and governments that host antennas on rights-of-way or property) would suddenly face financial liability for every antenna that causes a significant RF incursion. The prospect of paying just compensation to potentially thousands of neighbors of cell sites would make the current wireless infrastructure deployment model far more costly. This creates a powerful incentive for the industry to support changes that would mitigate liability. Those changes could include lobbying for updated FCC exposure standards (to minimize areas of “high RF” spillover), funding RF mitigation technologies, or even asking Congress to revise Section 704. For instance, the industry might prefer allowing some local control (e.g. greater setbacks from homes, or the ability to deny certain locations) rather than risking continual payouts for takings. In short, a victory in takings can force the stakeholders to the table to negotiate more sensible safety regulations, effectively driving policy reform. It turns the current equation upside down: today, the cost of ignoring health falls on the public (in potential health or property value hits). Takings litigation would shift that cost back onto the industry or government, making it more costly to maintain the status quo than to improve it.

• Takings Win is Self-Executing: Unlike legislative advocacy, which requires persuading political actors, a court-ordered compensation is immediate and concrete. If someone wins $100,000 because a small cell outside their bedroom was a taking, that money must be paid. It’s not theoretical. This has a galvanizing effect – it proves the concept and will undoubtedly inspire others. Municipalities might even see takings liabilities coming and themselves push back on the siting of towers (even under 704) to avoid being on the hook (for instance, if it’s a city-owned pole in the right-of-way, the city could be deemed the takings defendant). Thus, one successful case can have an outsize demonstration effect.

None of this is to say the First and Tenth Amendment arguments lack importance. They serve as supporting fire. They can help shape the narrative in court that Section 704 is an outlier that offends multiple constitutional values, not just property rights. They keep the broader issues of democratic governance and free flow of information in view, which might subtly influence a judge’s inclinations. And outside of court, they are rallying cries for public officials and citizens (who may find “gag clause violates free speech” or “federal overreach on local rights” to be compelling slogans to pressure their representatives). If nothing else, they prepare the battlefield for eventual legislative fixes by highlighting the constitutional tensions.

Success Scenario: Imagine property owners start winning takings cases – either getting compensation or (even better) forcing the removal/relocation of offending antennas unless paid for. This would make headlines (“Homeowners win payout over 5G tower invasion”). It validates the harm in the public eye. Municipalities would feel emboldened to demand carriers take steps to reduce RF exposure (since they don’t want liability). Insurers might get skittish about underwriting towers in dense areas. All this pressure converges on Washington: the simplest way to resolve it would be to amend or repeal Section 704 to allow reasonable health-based siting measures (like setbacks, power limits, exclusion zones around homes/schools) – essentially, to prevent situations that give rise to takings claims in the first place. Ironically, winning takings cases may accomplish what decades of lobbying to change the law could not: making the telecoms and feds realize that the “gag clause” approach is unsustainable. When the cost of ignoring health lands on the balance sheets, minds will change. 🌐

In conclusion, the Fifth Amendment takings strategy is our strongest constitutional lever because it speaks the judiciary’s language of property rights and remedies a direct injury without stepping on the political third rail of “is RF safe or not.” It turns Section 704 on its head: Congress said localities can’t protect you, but the Constitution says the government can’t take your safety (or your sense of security on your own property) for free. As one legal guide succinctly put it, Section 704 was drafted to keep local health debates out of siting; it says nothing about taking your property rights when RF emissions invade your land – the Takings Clause fills that gap.rfsafe.com By wielding this tool, we can not only obtain justice for individuals, but also force a broader reckoning that makes RF safety an issue that can no longer be brushed aside.

---

Appendix: Public-Facing Litigation Toolkit

This appendix serves as a practical guide or “toolkit” for municipalities, community groups, and attorneys who want to apply the above strategy on the ground. It provides model language and steps for hearings, comments, legal pleadings, and evidence gathering. The goal is to translate the legal theory into concrete actions that local governments and citizens can take to protect their rights under current law, while building a record for eventual court challenges.

A. Model Language for Hearings and Public Comments

When opposing a wireless facility (cell tower or antenna) at a local hearing, it’s important to balance legal compliance with making your point. Federal law forbids the board from denying a permit “on the basis of” health effects, but you have every right to voice health concerns for the record. Many savvy communities choose to enter health evidence into the record “under protest.” Here’s sample language a planning board chair or city attorney might use to handle this:

“We are aware that under 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv) (Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act), our decision today cannot be based on environmental or health effects of RF emissions if the facility will comply with FCC limitsassets.noviams.com. However, we will allow residents to speak on all concerns, including health, so their views are fully heard and recorded. We note that excluding health considerations under compulsion of federal law may infringe on the public’s First Amendment right to petition and our duty to make a fully informed decisionrfsafe.com. Therefore, health-related testimony and documents will be accepted into the record. The board will not use RF health effects as a basis for its decision, but the presence of this evidence is noted for higher authorities who may review this case.”

This approach respects the “no denial based on health” rule (by explicitly stating the decision won’t be based on it), yet it avoids silencing the community. It also creates a paper trail that the local government felt muzzled, which could be useful in future constitutional challenges. Members of the public can bolster this by phrasing their comments in a way that highlights the injustice of the gag clause. For example, a resident might say:

“I understand you are not allowed to consider health risks in your decision – which I believe is a violation of my rights as a citizen. I’m submitting Exhibit A, a scientific study from the National Institutes of Health, showing this radiation caused cancer in lab animalsntp.niehs.nih.gov. Even if you cannot weigh it, I want it on record that we have this evidence. By ignoring it, we are effectively participating in a lie that there are no health issues. I urge the city to document these concerns and seek relief from this unjust federal restriction.”

Such a statement both informs the public record and preserves constitutional objections. If the applicant’s attorney objects (“this is irrelevant under Section 704!”), the chair can respond: “Noted. We are complying with federal law in our decision criteria, but we will not censor public comment on an issue of public health.” This stance leans on First Amendment values – as long as the board ultimately cites only permitted reasons (like aesthetics or spacing or property values) for its decision, simply hearing the health evidence is not a violation of Section 704. There is strength in transparency: let the transcript show that dozens of citizens raised health concerns but the board felt constrained by federal law – it paints a compelling picture for any subsequent legal action or media story.

Including Written Comments: Encourage citizens to submit written comments with studies attached. The board can label them “Received (for the record, not for basis of decision).” This way, if a court ever reviews whether the city acted arbitrarily, it will see the uncomfortable reality that the city had evidence of potential harm that it was forbidden to act upon.

Takeaway: Do not self-censor more than required. You can obey the letter of Section 704(b) (don’t base the final decision on health) without shutting down discussion. By using careful language, you can protect the process and the people’s voice, while signaling that the city objects to being commandeered in this mannerrfsafe.comrfsafe.com. This builds moral authority and groundwork for change.

B. Model Legal Complaint Language

If you are drafting a lawsuit – be it a federal takings claim, or a combined action with First/Tenth Amendment counts – clear and forceful wording is key. Below are some model paragraphs that can be adapted for a complaint or even used in demand letters and op-eds. They draw on the concepts discussed in this chapter.

1. Fifth Amendment Takings Claim (RF Invasion):

“Section 704’s preemption, combined with FCC licensing and local permits, has created a government-authorized, continuous invasion of private property by radiofrequency energy. Like the overflight and smoke easements in Causby, Griggs, and Richards, the emissions from the proposed facility cross the boundaries of Plaintiff’s property 24/7, appropriating an RF easement that directly and peculiarly burdens that property. The Takings Clause requires just compensation for this permanent physical invasion, or at minimum compensation under the Causby standard for a direct and immediate interference with use and valuerfsafe.com.”

This paragraph encapsulates the takings theory in plain language while citing the golden precedents. It alleges a “de facto easement” (a key term) and invokes both the per se rule (permanent physical invasion) and, in the alternative, a Causby-type analysis (serious interference with use/enjoyment). It’s good to mention the specific site: e.g. “emissions from the 50-foot small cell tower at 123 Main St. cross onto Plaintiff’s bedroom windows…” to personalize it.

2. First Amendment Claim (Right to Petition/Receive Information):

“Section 704(b) of the Telecom Act, as applied, violates the First Amendment by forbidding local officials from hearing or considering truthful, non-misleading information about the health effects of RF radiation. This gag on an entire subject matter in governmental proceedings infringes citizens’ right to petition and intrudes on the flow of information necessary for self-governance. The Plaintiff was injured by this restriction when her valid health evidence and testimony were excluded from City Council’s deliberations solely due to §704(b), rendering her petition for redress ineffective and her speech disregarded. Such content-based suppression of speech on a matter of public safety fails strict (or intermediate) scrutiny, serving no legitimate government interest – or at very least, it burdens substantially more speech than necessary to further any interest.”

This frames the issue as our ability to share and consider truthful information being curtailed. It might not win given precedent, but it sets up a serious constitutional question. It’s wise to reference how courts allow factual health disclosures (e.g. Zauderer, CTIA v. Berkeley) to show that acknowledging health info is not off-limits under the First Amendmentfreespeechforpeople.org. One could add: “The government may not intentionally blind itself (and subordinate governments) to relevant facts, at the expense of the people’s voice, to advantage a particular industry. Citizens are guaranteed at least the opportunity to be heard and have their evidence considered in the policymaking process – an opportunity §704(b) unlawfully denies.” This is a novel claim, but it resonates with fundamental principles.

3. Tenth Amendment Claim (Anti-commandeering):

“Section 704(b) violates the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state and local governments’ regulatory authority. It dictates to state political subdivisions not to regulate in an area (wireless facility health effects) that is traditionally within their police powers. Unlike ordinary preemption – which supplants state law with federal law – §704(b) leaves a regulatory void, simply ordering states ‘Don’t handle this issue,’ while providing no federal scheme to protect the public. This crosses the line identified in Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S.Ct. 1461 (2018): Congress is issuing a direct command to state governments (‘do not regulate X’), which unconstitutionally “dictat[es] what a state legislature or agency can and cannot do” in its domaincongress.gov. Plaintiff as a citizen of the state is harmed by this intrusion on her state’s sovereign ability to safeguard health and property. The Court should declare §704(b) unconstitutional and restore state and local power to account for health and safety in wireless zoning.”

This count basically asks for declaratory relief that §704(b) is invalid. It’s ambitious (essentially undoing part of the 1996 Act), but it lays out the Murphy argument clearly, citing the case. Even if the court doesn’t bite, it educates and preserves the issue. And if there’s a circuit split or rising interest, who knows – SCOTUS could one day agree.

In all complaint language, remember to include factual allegations that show standing (e.g. you live 50 feet from a proposed antenna and have specific concerns or property impacts) and harm (for First Amendment, how you were silenced; for Tenth, how the city would have helped you but for the law, etc.). These model paras focus on the constitutional violation itself.

C. Evidence Gathering & Documentation

Building a persuasive case – whether in court or simply to galvanize public opinion – requires solid evidence. Here is a checklist of evidence and expert support to gather when preparing for an RF takings lawsuit (or any related challenge):

1. Permitting and Engineering Records: Obtain the full local permit file for the wireless facility in question. This includes the application, the radiofrequency (RF) coverage maps, antenna specifications, transmitter power output (EIRP) data, and any reports the carrier submitted (like compliance with FCC limits). These often show the sector orientations, downtilt angles, and power levels – crucial for proving the emissions are directed at your propertyrfsafe.com.

2. RF Exposure Measurements: Commission a 24-hour RF survey at your property. Hire a professional RF engineer or health physicist with a calibrated spectrum analyzer. Measure the power density on the exterior facade facing the antenna and inside key living areas (e.g. bedroom) over an extended periodrfsafe.com. Make sure the data can identify signals from that specific site (by frequency or network codes)rfsafe.com. This will show how much RF from the defendant’s site is present, and at what times. Having readings showing elevated levels (even if “within FCC limits”) helps establish the physical presence and intensity of the invasion.

3. Propagation Modeling: Use software or an RF expert to model the signal propagation from the site onto your parcel. This can produce a visual graphic of the RF plume overlapping your houserfsafe.com. If it shows, for example, that your second floor is in the main lobe of the antenna (a high-power zone), it bolsters the claim of a “parcel-specific” focused invasionrfsafe.com. It’s even better if you can show that most other homes are outside the main beam, and yours is uniquely burdened – analogous to the “direct, peculiar” impact in Richardsrfsafe.com.

4. Property Valuation Study: Engage a professional real estate appraiser to conduct a diminution in value analysis. The appraiser can compare your property’s value with and without the proximate cell tower, using either paired sales (comparable sales near towers vs not near towers) or an income capitalization approach if applicable. Litigation over power lines and cell towers has shown they can reduce home values. An appraisal that concludes, say, “The market value of the Smith residence is depressed by 10% ($50,000) due to the presence and stigma of the cell antenna and its emissions” is powerful evidence of a tangible property impactrfsafe.com. This directly ties to takings damages (just compensation would presumably cover that loss in value).

5. Expert Witness Declarations: Line up a few experts who can provide declarations or testimony to support key pointsrfsafe.com:

   • An RF Engineer to attest that the facility’s signals reach the plaintiff’s property at significant levels (and to explain the measurements/modeling).

   • A Biophysics or Electromagnetics Expert (such as a scientist who studies EMF health effects) to explain in general terms that RF radiation interacts with the human body and environment (e.g. discussing the voltage-gated ion channel mechanism or oxidative stress)rfsafe.com. They can say “this is not innocuous; it’s a physical agent with biological effects,” supporting the idea that the invasion is material.

   • The Real Estate Appraiser who did the valuation, to certify their findings.

   • Potentially a Medical or Environmental Health expert if arguing health impacts in a related case (though for a pure takings claim, you don’t need to prove health damage, just physical intrusion and property effect).

6. Scientific Literature Citations: Prepare a compendium of key scientific studies (with summaries) to attach or cite in expert reportsrfsafe.com. At minimum, include:

   • NTP 2018 final report (or summary) showing clear evidence of RF carcinogenicity in animalsrfsafe.com.

   • Ramazzini 2018 study showing tumor increases at environmental exposure levelsrfsafe.com.

   • WHO/IARC 2025 statements indicating the evidence of hazard (e.g. the high-certainty findings for animal tumors)rfsafe.com.

   • Reviews on oxidative stress (like Henry Lai’s review) showing the high percentage of studies with effectsrfsafe.com.

   • Any epidemiological studies relevant (e.g. increase in cancer among people living near towers, if available; or at least the cell phone user studies).
     These will buttress the argument that the RF is a serious matter and not a de minimis technicality. As one guide advised, “cite NTP 2018, Ramazzini 2018, and the WHO 2025 animal review showing high-certainty signals for glioma and schwannoma – helping courts see the invasion as material and non-trivial.”rfsafe.com

Collecting this evidence can seem daunting, but it is doable with community effort. For example, neighbors can pool funds for an RF survey (around $3,000–$5,000) and an appraisal (maybe $1,000). There are free resources for scientific studies (many experts and organizations will share literature packages). The key is to document, document, document. A well-documented case can overcome the skepticism that judges might have (“is this just speculative fear?”) by showing concrete numbers, maps, and facts.

D. Answering Common Objections (Briefly)

In advocating or litigating on these issues, you will encounter common pushbacks. Here’s how to answer them, in a concise form:

• “The FCC says this is safe, so what’s the big deal?” – Rebuttal: The FCC’s determination of “safety” is under court-ordered review and was found lacking reasonpropublica.orgpropublica.org. But even if exposure is within safety limits, that’s irrelevant to a takings claim. Takings law is about property rights, not health risk per se. The Constitution requires compensation for physical occupation regardless of whether the occupation is harmful. (For example, in Loretto, the cable box didn’t harm the building, but it still had to be paid for.) And if one insists on safety: note that compliance with 1996 FCC limits doesn’t prove absolute safety, especially for non-thermal effects – a fact the D.C. Circuit highlightedpropublica.org.

• “Radio waves aren’t physical – you can’t see them, how can they be a taking?” – Rebuttal: You can’t see noise or odor either, yet the law treats those as physical invasions when they are directed and substantialrfsafe.comrfsafe.com. RF waves are electromagnetic energy – photons with momentum – that physically penetrate structures and bodies. They can be measured in watts/m² on the property. Courts have compensated owners for invisible invasions like vibrations, sound shocks, and chemical fumes. RF is no different in principle; it is tangible enough to cause electrical currents and biological effects, so it’s tangible enough for the law.

• “The tower isn’t on your land, it’s on the neighbor’s or public right-of-way – how can you sue the government or carrier for using someone else’s land?” – Rebuttal: Because the effects don’t stop at the property line. The government authorized use of that other land in a way that projects onto mine. It’s akin to Causby: the government didn’t own the farm, it just used the air above it for flights – and still had to paysupremecourt.gov. Also, if the tower is on public right-of-way, the government (city/county) is actually the landlord – making it directly responsible under takings law (like the county in Griggs)rfsafe.com. If on private land, the suit can be against the United States (FCC) under the Tucker Act, since the federal authorization and law are what enable the invasionrfsafe.com. Either way, it’s the government’s authorization that is the but-for cause of the RF flooding my propertyrfsafe.com.

• “No court has recognized an ‘RF taking’ before – this is unprecedented.” – Rebuttal: True, it’s novel, but it’s built on bedrock precedents. Courts have said intangible invasions can be takings (Causby, etc.). We simply apply that to new technology. The absence of prior RF cases is likely because most people didn’t live extremely close to transmitters until recent small cell deployments. Now that 30-foot poles are popping up by homes, the issue is ripe. Also, one earlier case (Santa Fe Alliance) was dismissed on procedural grounds, not on the meritsrfsafe.com. No court has squarely ruled against this theory with a full factual record – so we’re asking this court to make a thoughtful, first-impression decision with the benefit of evidence.

These quick answers can be used in FAQs for community outreach, or in legal briefs’ argument sections.

E. Action Steps for Communities

Beyond litigation, communities can start taking steps to protect themselves and build leverage:

1. Document Your Local RF Environment: Map out existing towers and new small cell sites. Note distances to homes, schools, etc. This forms the basis of any argument about cumulative effects or unique burdens.

2. Adopt or Update Local Wireless Ordinances: Even with Section 704 constraints, cities can still regulate aesthetics, set reasonable setbacks, require concealment, and require applicants to provide extensive technical documentation. For instance, some cities demand RF emission maps and proof of compliance with FCC limits as part of the record (which also helps later if you need evidence of the RF levels). While you can’t say “no towers near schools because of health,” you might justify a setback from schools on other grounds (like property values or public controversy) – just tread carefully to not say “health.” Some towns have included “Whereas” clauses in ordinances citing the D.C. Circuit’s remand of the FCC’s RF order, to signal that they are aware of unresolved safety issues (planting seeds for future legal justification).

3. Educate and Organize: Hold public forums on this issue, invite experts (scientists, lawyers). The more people understand the constitutional angle (not just “RF is scary,” but “our rights are being infringed”), the more political support grows. Build coalitions with environmental health groups, property rights advocates, and constitutional rights groups (our cause interestingly bridges all these domains). Even reach out to your state legislators – some states have been introducing bills to regain some local control over wireless facilities (though industry opposition is fierce).

4. Engage Your Representatives in DC: City councils and county boards can pass resolutions urging Congress to amend Section 704. There was a bill H.R.530 in 2019 (to roll back an FCC preemption order) which had dozens of co-sponsorsmdsafetech.org. While not successful then, continued pressure can put this on the agenda, especially as 5G rollouts generate more complaints. Emphasize to federal reps that this is a bipartisan local rights issue – it’s not anti-tech, it’s pro-democracy and pro-health. Even a simple tweak like allowing denial if substantial evidence of adverse impact on private property exists could restore balance.

5. Litigate Smartly: If you do file a case, try to pick a strong fact pattern (e.g. a super-close tower to a home with clear evidence of harm, and maybe a governmental defendant with deep pockets like a city or the feds). Consider filing in the Court of Federal Claims if suing the U.S. for takings (Tucker Act). Or in state court for inverse condemnation if it’s a city-owned pole. There may be strategic advantages to each route (and the possibility of removal to federal court always looms). Ensure you have at least one plaintiff who has standing (actual or imminent injury, e.g. the tower is approved and about to be built or already operating). One can also coordinate suits: multiple suits in different circuits could increase chances of a circuit split that attracts Supreme Court attention.

By following these steps, communities not only protect themselves in the interim, they also contribute to the larger movement to dismantle the “gag clause.” Each piece of evidence gathered, each legal argument made, each local resolution passed – they all build momentum toward our endgame: restoring sanity and constitutionality to RF safety regulation.

---

Closing Thought: We began with the title “Repeal the Gag Clause.” That remains the ultimate goal – whether by courts recognizing its infirmities, or by Congress heeding the call of constituents fed up with being muzzled about their own well-being. By using the First Amendment to keep speaking the truth, the Fifth Amendment to demand justice for property invasions, and the Tenth Amendment to defend local self-governance, we can and will bring about a more rational, health-protective framework for wireless technology. It’s a fight for our homes, our rights, and our communities’ future – and armed with the Constitution and scientific truth, it’s a fight we are poised to win.