"I am inclined to rule against you," stated Judge Robert L. Wilkins to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

In case you missed it, the Environmental Health Trust had its day in court. The truth was on our side and the federal judges asked excellent questions indicating that they read the scientific and policy evidence that EHT submitted to the FCC over the last decade, much of which is now being used as key evidence in this historic case.

Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC is an historic case aimed at getting the FCC to reconsider, revise, and update its 25-year-old exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi networks, smart meters, and other wireless communication devices and facilities. Briefs were filed jointly with Children's Health Defense.

"I’m just going to be very upfront with why I am inclined to rule against you," said Honorable Judge Robert L. Wilkins (a chemical engineer by training) during his questioning of FCC counsel Ashley S. Boizelle regarding the process the FCC and Food & Drug Administration (FDA) used to determine safety. "The problem that I have is that you say you're relying on the expertise of the FDA but the entity that Congress specifically said to review this, this (radiofrequency interagency working group), you've given us no evidence that this committee has looked at any of this."

"So I’m just trying to understand how the FDA coming back and talking about cell phones that are in a holster — where nobody keeps them anymore — or in a purse when they’re not being used is at all … and looking only at cancer is at all relevant to an inquiry, again, into the effect of this radiation frequency from multiple devices that are used in entirely different ways now," said Judge Patricia Ann Millet in her questioning of how 1996 limits apply to 2021 technology.

EHT et al. v. FCC Key Resources
The landmark case was argued at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Monday, January 25, 2021. EHT's case was joined by Children's Health Defense who had filed in another circuit and consolidated with EHT by the courts. The full list of petitioners in EHT et al. v. FCC includes Environmental Health Trust, Consumers for Safer Phones, Elizabeth Barris, Theodora Scarato MSW, Children's Health Defense, Michelle Hertz, Petra Brokken, Dr. David Carpenter, Dr. Toril Jelter, Dr. Paul Dart, Dr. Ann Lee, Virginia Farver, Jennifer Baran, and Paul Stanley M.Ed.
Major Press Coverage Followed the Court Hearing

"A federal appeals panel in Washington voiced skepticism that the Federal Communications Commission had adequately considered dangerous health effects when it established guidelines for radiation emission from cell towers and wireless devices..."

"Dr. Devra Davis, an epidemiologist with the trust, said the standards that were set for testing 5G were set 24 years ago. “They’re out of date,” Davis said, “and they cannot adequately reflect a technology that did not exist and was not even on the drawing boards when those test systems were developed.”

"It was quite impressive to note how thoroughly the judges had read our brief in this complicated case. They asked pointed questions about what we have documented in our case to be the failure of the FCC to produce a record of reasoned decision-making. For example, the judges zeroed in on the fact that there is a U.S. interagency radiofrequency working group of which there is no record of consultation," said Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, president of Environmental Health Trust.

"Further, they questioned the FCC regarding the fact that its own technical advisory group on electronic products had failed to weigh in on cell phones altogether. The justices questioned how the agency could ignore the undeniable fact that the types of devices, wireless uses, and users of wireless devices are radically different today than they were when the standards were first set," Davis said.