In the late 2010s, deployment of fifth-generation (5G) wireless technology in the United States made headlines as the first Trump administration pushed for victory in the international “race to 5G.” In concurrent legal proceedings, US cities sued the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over its 2018 orders to hasten 5G rollout. In 2020, the Ninth Circuit upheld the FCC's preemption of a range of municipal regulations of 5G deployment in City of Portland v. United States. Taking a constitutionalist approach to the study of urban infrastructure politics, this article argues that the FCC and the Ninth Circuit undercut the ability of municipalities to enable their citizens’ local political agency over the terms of infrastructure deployment—and, simultaneously, the terms of urban social progress. The court's decision to treat the aesthetic and the economic aspects of 5G differently, taking a commonsense approach to aesthetics as a local matter but deferring to the FCC on economic concerns, advanced the FCC's nationalist project of connectivity as the making of a single national market through material means. At stake was a narrowing of citizens’ legitimate role in the shaping of city futures, a role whose implicitly constitutional infrastructures demand careful maintenance in the digital age.
AliChristopher.2021. Farm Fresh Broadband: The Politics of Rural Connectivity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
2.
BarberBenjamin R.2013. If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vksfr.
3.
BeveridgeRossRudolphDavidNaumannMatthias. 2024. “The Rise of ‘Infrastructural Populism’: Urban Infrastructure and Right-Wing Politics.” Geography Compass18 (2): e12738. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12738.
4.
BowkerGeoffrey C.1994. Science on the Run: Information Management and Industrial Geophysics at Schlumberger, 1920-1940. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
5.
BowkerGeoffrey C.StarSusan Leigh. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
ButotVivienvan ZoonenLiesbet. 2022. “Contesting Infrastructural Futures: 5G Opposition as a Technological Drama.” Science, Technology, & Human Values49 (5): 1017–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439221147347.
14.
Chevron USA., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 1984. 467 U.S.* 837.
ConnollyMichelle.2019. “The Economic Impact of Section 224 Exemption of Municipal and Cooperative Poles.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4267326.
17.
CrabuStefanoPicardiIleniaTurriniValentina. 2023. “Refused-Knowledge during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mobilising Experiential Expertise for Care and Well-Being.” Science as Culture32 (1): 132–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2138309.
18.
Crown Castle Fiber v City of Pasadena. 2023. 76 F.4th 425 (5th Cir.).
19.
DahlRobert A.1967. “The City in the Future of Democracy.” The American Political Science Review61 (4): 953–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953398.
Environmental Health Trust v. FCC. 2021. 9 F.4th 893 (DC Cir.).
24.
EshooAnna G.[D-CA-18]. 2019. “H.R.530 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Accelerating Broadband Development by Empowering Local Communities Act of 2019.” Legislation. January 25, 2019. Accessed June 4, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/530.
25.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1997. California Payphone Association Petition for Preemption of Ordinance No. 576 NS of the City of Huntington Park, California Pursuant to Section 253(d) of the Communications Act of 1934. 12 FCC Rcd. 14191. Accessed June 4, 2025. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-97-251A1.pdf.
26.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2018a. “Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment.” 33 FCC Rcd. 7705. Accessed June 4, 2025. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-111A1_Rcd.pdf.
27.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2018b. “Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment.” 33 FCC Rcd. 9088. Accessed June 4, 2025. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-133A1_Rcd.pdf.
28.
FloydJennifer.2001. “Preemption of Local Governments’ Authority to Limit Wireless Phone Service Is a Tough Cell Under the Telecommunications Act.” Missouri Law Review66 (1): 205–224. https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol66/iss1/12.
FoleyRiderRushforthRichardKalinowskiTomaszBennettIra. 2020. “From Public Engagement to Research Intervention: Analyzing Processes and Exploring Outcomes in Urban Techno-Politics.” Science as Culture29 (3): 319–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2019.1705271.
GabrysJennifer.2014. “Programming Environments: Environmentality and Citizen Sensing in the Smart City.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space32 (1): 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1068/d16812.
HurlbutJ. Benjamin. 2017. Experiments in Democracy: Human Embryo Research and the Politics of Bioethics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/hurl17954.
47.
HurlbutJ. BenjaminJasanoffSheilaSahaKrishanu. 2020. “Constitutionalism at the Nexus of Life and Law.” Science, Technology, & Human Values45 (6): 979–1000. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243920921236.
48.
JasanoffSheila.2003. “In a Constitutional Moment: Science and Social Order at the Millennium.” In Social Studies of Science and Technology: Looking Back, Ahead, edited by JoergesB.NowotnyH., 155–80. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
49.
JasanoffSheila.2004. “Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society.” In States of Knowledge : The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, 13–45. New York: Routledge.
50.
JasanoffSheila.2011. Reframing Rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
51.
JasanoffSheila.2012. “Taking Life: Private Rights in Public Nature.” In Lively Capital: Biotechnologies, Ethics, and Governance in Global Markets, edited by Sunder RajanKaushik, 155–83. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
52.
JasanoffSheila.2016. “Subjects of Reason: Goods, Markets and Competing Imaginaries of Global Governance.” London Review of International Law4 (3): 361–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/lril/lrw021.
JasanoffSheila.2021. “The Vanishing Square: Civic Learning in the Internet Age.” Hastings Center Report51 (S1): S5–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1222.
KeltyChristopher M.2014. “The Fog of Freedom.” In Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, edited by GillespieTarletonBoczkowskiPablo J.FootKirsten A., 195–220. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262525374.003.0010.
57.
KimmelmanGeneCooperMarkHerraMagda. 2006. “The Failure of Competition Under the 1996 Telecommunications Act.” Federal Communications Law Journal58 (3): 511–518. Accessed June 4, 2025. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol58/iss3/9.
58.
KrotoszynskiRonald.2006. “History Belongs to the Winners: The Bazelon-Leventhal Debate and the Continuing Relevance of the Process/Substance Dichotomy in Judicial Review of Agency Action Administrative Law Discussion Forum.” Administrative Law Review58: 995. Accessed June 4, 2025. https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_articles/222.
59.
LatourBruno.1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
LefebvreHenri.1968. Le Droit À La Ville [The Right to the City]. Paris, France: Anthropos.
61.
LessigLawrence.1999. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York, NY: Basic Books.
LynchCasey R.2020. “Contesting Digital Futures: Urban Politics, Alternative Economies, and the Movement for Technological Sovereignty in Barcelona.” Antipode52 (3): 660–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12522.
64.
MansellRobinPlantinJean-Christophe. 2022. “Imagining 5G Networks: Infrastructure and Public Accountability.” International Journal of Communication16 (1): 4825–43. Accessed June 4, 2025. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/18004.
MarquesMathew D.KerrJohn R.WilliamsMatt N.LingMathewMcLennanJim. 2021. “Associations between Conspiracism and the Rejection of Scientific Innovations.” Public Understanding of Science30 (7): 854–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211007013.
MatternShannon.2019. “Networked Dream Worlds: Is 5G Solving Real, Pressing Problems or Merely Creating New Ones?” Real Life, July 8. Accessed June 4, 2025. https://reallifemag.com/networked-dream-worlds/.
69.
MatternShannon.2021. A City Is Not a Computer: Other Urban Intelligences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 1999. “Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide.” Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. Accessed June 4, 2025. https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/data/fttn99/FTTN.pdf.
76.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 2000. “Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion.” Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. Accessed June 4, 2025. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fttn00.pdf.
SadowskiJathanBendorRoy. 2019. “Selling Smartness: Corporate Narratives and the Smart City as a Sociotechnical Imaginary.” Science, Technology, & Human Values44 (3): 540–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918806061.
SchraggerRichard.2016. City Power: Urban Governance in a Global Age. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
91.
SchraggerRichard.2022. “The City in the Future of Federalism.” In Cities in Federal Constitutional Theory, edited by ArbanErika, 204–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192843272.003.0011.
92.
StilgoeJack.2005. “Controlling Mobile Phone Health Risks in the UK: A Fragile Discourse of Compliance.” Science and Public Policy32 (1): 55–64. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154305781779704.
Sunder RajanKaushik. 2011. “Two Tales of Genomics: Capital, Epistemology, and Global Constitutions of the Biomedical Subject.” In Reframing Rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age, edited by JasanoffSheila, 193–216. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
