On July 20, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied Viasat’s request to pause a Federal Communications Commission order while the court reviewed it. The FCC order had allowed SpaceX to fly a large part of its Starlink constellation lower, so the approval stayed in effect during the appeal. The ruling did not decide whether the approval was lawful; a separate opinion addressed that more than a year later.
Event summary
The order, issued per curiam by Circuit Judges Millett, Wilkins and Rao in case No. 21-1123 (consolidated with Nos. 21-1125, 21-1127 and 21-1128), was brief. On the stay motion it said only that Viasat “has not satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending court review.” In the same order the court granted an unopposed motion to expedite the appeal and set a briefing timetable, with opening briefs due on August 6, 2021 and final briefs on October 26, 2021.
The order named Viasat, Inc. as appellant, the FCC as appellee and Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, the SpaceX licensee, as intervenor. Two days later, Ars Technica reported the decision and summarized the parties’ filings.
Some coverage at the time described the ruling as a rejection of Viasat’s lawsuit. The order does not support that reading: it addressed only interim relief, and the appeal continued.
Verified background
The FCC order under challenge
The order Viasat wanted paused was FCC 21-48, an Order and Authorization and Order on Reconsideration adopted on April 23, 2021 and released on April 27, 2021. In its opening paragraph the Commission said it was reducing the number of satellites in SpaceX’s Ku- and Ka-band license from 4,409 to 4,408 and changing the primary operational altitude of 2,814 satellites from the 1,100–1,300 km range to the 540–570 km range.
The same order denied petitions from Viasat and other satellite operators, an opposition filed by an organization called The Balance Group, and a Viasat petition for reconsideration of an earlier partial grant. The Commission’s stated reasons were better service for remote and underserved areas, including polar regions, lower latency, and benefits for orbital debris mitigation, because satellites at the lower altitude would leave orbit sooner at the end of their lives. The court later described FCC 21-48 as the second such change, after a 2019 approval that lowered roughly half of the constellation.
What Viasat argued
Viasat filed its motion to stay pending judicial review on June 2, 2021. Its central argument was that the FCC had approved the modification without preparing an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In the motion Viasat claimed that satellites disintegrating on re-entry would harm the ozone layer and contribute to climate change, that the deployment would increase the risk of collisions in orbit, and that it would add light pollution affecting astronomy. It also claimed it would suffer “unwarranted competitive injury.”
These were a party’s arguments. The July 2021 order neither adopted nor rejected them on the evidence; it ruled only that the test for a stay had not been met.
What the FCC argued
The FCC filed its opposition on June 14, 2021. It said the Commission had “closely examined and reasonably rejected Viasat’s claims,” that the license change fell within a NEPA categorical exclusion, and that Viasat relied on “speculative assertions of primarily economic harm.” According to a footnote in the same filing, The Balance Group had also appealed but did not join the stay motion, filing a response in support of it on June 14, 2021.
Key facts and timeline
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| April 23, 2021 | FCC adopts FCC 21-48, approving the Starlink altitude modification | FCC 21-48 |
| April 27, 2021 | FCC releases FCC 21-48 | FCC 21-48 |
| June 2, 2021 | Viasat files its motion to stay the FCC order pending judicial review | Viasat motion |
| June 14, 2021 | FCC files its opposition; The Balance Group files a response supporting the stay, as noted in the FCC filing | FCC opposition |
| July 20, 2021 | Court denies the stay, grants expedited review and sets the briefing schedule | D.C. Circuit order |
| July 22, 2021 | Ars Technica reports the order | Ars Technica |
| December 3, 2021 | Appeal argued before Circuit Judges Wilkins, Katsas and Walker | D.C. Circuit opinion, 2022 |
| August 26, 2022 | Court issues its opinion: affirmed in part, dismissed in part | D.C. Circuit opinion, 2022 |
The later decision, dated August 26, 2022
Circuit Judge Katsas wrote the merits opinion. The court rejected on the merits an argument by DISH Network, another SpaceX competitor, that the FCC had not adequately considered signal interference with DISH’s satellites. It declined to consider the NEPA claim brought by Viasat and The Balance Group: the court held that The Balance Group had not shown Article III standing and that Viasat’s asserted injury did not fall within the zone of interests NEPA protects. The disposition read “Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.”
The 2022 opinion therefore did not decide whether the FCC should have prepared an environmental assessment. It decided that no party before the court was entitled to press that claim.
What remains uncertain
- Later proceedings. This review did not trace events after the August 26, 2022 opinion, such as any rehearing request, Supreme Court filing or later Starlink licensing disputes, and makes no statement about litigation after that date.
- Satellite count. The opening paragraph of FCC 21-48 gives 2,814 satellites for the altitude change. Other passages of the same order, and the Ars Technica report, use 2,824. Either figure describes this license modification, not the size of the Starlink network or satellites launched.
- Claimed harms. The court did not evaluate the environmental and competitive harms Viasat described on the merits, in 2021 or 2022, and the sources reviewed here do not establish whether they occurred.
- The earlier article. Its text was not recovered, and no archived copy of the exact legacy address was found.
About this review
This page is a newly written historical review based on the sources listed below. It is not presented as the original article, whose author and original publication date could not be confirmed. It relies on the court’s 2021 order and 2022 opinion, FCC 21-48, the parties’ stay filings and contemporary news coverage. The event dates and the publication date of this review are shown separately. Other entries are listed in the Historical Archive, and errors can be reported through the process described in our editorial policy.
