The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF] in two cases Monday. In T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] the court heard arguments on what it means to satisfy the “in writing” requirement of the Telecommunications Act [text]. The court will determine whether a state or local government document determining that an application to place, construct, or modify a personal wireless service facility has been denied, without providing any reason for the denial, satisfies the requirement that a denial of a petition be explained “in writing.” Circuit courts are currently split four-to-two over the amount of writing required. Some courts require a sufficient explanation of the evaluation, while others find that a simple denial letter is adequate.

In M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett [transcript, PDF] the court heard arguments on how courts should construe silence over the duration of retiree health care benefits during collective bargaining agreements under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) [text]. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holds that this silence indicates the parties’ intentions for the benefits to continue indefinitely. Meanwhile, the Third Circuit requires an explicitly clear statement that health-care benefits are to survive beyond the termination of the collective bargaining agreement. The Second and Seventh Circuits require that, for health-care benefits to continue indefinitely, there must be at least some language in the agreement to reasonably support such an interpretation.