In 2019, Montgomery County, Maryland, took historic legal action against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). At the time, the FCC had issued sweeping small cell fast-track rules that pre-empted local city and state control over the placement of 4G and 5G antennas into residential neighborhoods.

Montgomery County then filed legal action action the FCC rules. They became the only jurisdiction in the nation to directly challenge the FCC on radiofrequency (RF) health and safety, arguing that the federal government was advancing a “5G First, Safety Second” agenda—rolling out thousands of antennas while refusing to evaluate whether its 1996 cell tower radiation exposure limits protect human health in today’s wireless environment.

The County’s filing summarized the fundamental issue:

“How can the FCC mandate nationwide wireless infrastructure when it has not completed its own scientific review of whether current RF limits are adequate?”

At the time, the FCC had an open inquiry (launched in 2013) asking whether its exposure limits should be updated. Yet it had never completed that inquiry—even as it pushed forward unprecedented levels of wireless densification in its 5G small cell fast track rules.

Montgomery County argued that federal law requires science and public health to come before mass deployment—not after. In its brief, the County’s lawyers stated:

“If the new 5G environment poses health risks, any prior rollout will have potentially injured citizens…including children. Such a result would be unconscionable.”

Studies on people living near cell towers have reported health effects and numerous doctors and scientists were cautioning that long-term, low-level exposure—to which children are uniquely vulnerable—had never been adequately evaluated by the U.S. government. Montgomery County’s lawsuit brought national attention to the issue of cell tower and 5G risks and to the FCC’s refusal to address them.

Watch the 6-minute court hearing excerpt here.

Montgomery County’s lawsuit included a detailed brief by the County as well as an Amicus Brief by the Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council documenting exactly how the FCC had sidestepped science and public health over the decades. The Amicus stated:   

“FCC RFR exposure standards are for acute short-term thermal effects (like a microwave oven cooks food) but today’s exposures are long-term, low-level, chronic, and far below that threshold. Although a safety margin is built into the standards, any biological effects below that thermal threshold are simply unregulated for ambient, far-field exposures in particular that result from infrastructure.”

“There is a longstanding FCC pattern of negligence regarding state/local rights and inadequate exposure standards that only the courts can remedy today. It is long past time to solve this problem, which is only getting worse as each new layer of technology appears.” 

 FCC Reaffirmed 1996 RF Exposure Limits; Court Found Challenge Moot at Oral Argument

By the time oral argument in the case occurred in February 2020, the FCC had issued its December 2019 decision asserting, without meaningful analysis, that its 1996 wireless RF radiation exposure limits did not need to be updated, leading the court to deem Montgomery County’s challenge moot on procedural grounds rather than resolving the underlying health and safety issues. The judges The case did not move forward.

Although the Ninth Circuit ultimately upheld much of the FCC’s infrastructure order, Montgomery County’s RF-related challenge contributed to the momentum that led to the landmark EHT et al. v. FCC decision in 2021. In that case, a federal appeals court ruled that the FCC failed to adequately respond to evidence of:

• Reproductive and neurological effects
• Impacts on children
• Long-term exposure concerns
• Harm to wildlife and the environment

The DC Circuit ordered the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation regarding its decision not to update its cell tower and wireless radiation exposure limits in 2021—something the agency has still not done.

The Larger Scientific and Policy Context

Montgomery County’s position comes amidst a scientific record indicating a health risk. Further:

• U.S. RF limits are among the most lenient in the world, allowing far higher exposures than many European and Asian countries.
• These limits have not been updated since 1996, despite major technological changes and thousands of studies.
• The limits address only acute heating, not long-term biological effects, neurological impacts, or cumulative exposure.
• Children absorb more radiation than adults and are exposed beginning in utero through classroom Wi-Fi, home routers, and neighborhood cell tower antennas.
• A 2021 federal court ruling found the FCC acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” by refusing to update or justify its exposure limits.

In addition, many countries ban cell towers near schools, while the United States has no federal protections. The U.S. allows higher levels of cell tower radiation in the environment than several other countries. Many nations—including Italy, Switzerland, China, and Russia—have adopted far stricter regulations, with limits at 10 to 100 times lower than the U.S., recognizing the need for prevention and the potential for harmful effects, especially after long-term exposure. 

Why This Matters Right Now: The FCC’s New Attempt to Strip Local Authority

Today, in 2025 the FCC is advancing an even more sweeping deregulation under WT Docket 25-276, which could:

• Override local zoning rules
• Require automatic approval of wireless facilities if shot clocks are missed.
• Preempt setback laws and local RF testing requirements.
• Limit local fees
• Undermine aesthetic and concealment protections
• Silence residents by accelerating review timelines
• Potentially preempt local AI-related regulations

Local governments could lose significant meaningful authority over where towers and small cells are placed—even near homes, schools, and parks. This makes Montgomery County’s earlier stance more relevant than ever. Federal agencies should not impose infrastructure that increases involuntary exposure without first demonstrating safety.