Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

As part of its unwavering commitment to fastrack 5G and wireless deployment, on Jan. 7, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the U.S. federal agency entrusted with regulating telecommunications, adopted an amendment to its “Over The Air Reception Devices” (OTARD) rule.

The OTARD rule was never intended to regulate transmitting antennas, but via the rule amendment, the FCC allows the installation of fixed wireless base station antennas on private property (including homes) in order to provide wireless service to other properties.

With the adoption of this amendment, the FCC has gone further than with any previous regulation in removing barriers for deployment while continuing to deny and disregard the health and safety impact of wireless radiation on the public.

The amendment provides for unprecedented and sweeping preemptions, including all state and local laws and zoning regulations, such as the requirements of notice, application and permit.

It preempts homeowners association rules and deed restrictions and civil rights laws, including disability accommodation laws. The rule amendment enables a “Wireless Wild West” and transforms neighborhoods into radiation-saturated industrial zones.

To protect the public and the law, in February, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit against the FCC. The lawsuit, known as a “Petition for Review,” was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

This week, on Dec. 7, at 9:30 a.m. the court will hear the oral arguments in this case. The public can listen to the hearing live on YouTube.

CHD’s lawsuit challenges the legitimacy of this amendment on various grounds. It claims the amended rule violates constitutional rights and common-law personal and property rights, that it leads to due process violations and that it was passed without authority and statutory jurisdiction.

CHD presented its arguments in its main brief filed June 23. The FCC filed its brief Aug. 23, and CHD filed its reply brief Sept. 15.

In October, CHD filed the compilation of evidence referenced in the case, known as the Joint Appendix. The Joint Appendix consists of 27 binders with a total of 5,000 pages.

The case has attracted much public interest. On June 30, 68 organizations representing more than 1 million people signed onto an amicus brief in support of CHD’s lawsuit

This case is not the first challenge CHD has brought against the FCC. On Aug. 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (the same court that will hear the OTARD challenge) ruled in favor of CHD in its historic case against the FCC, which challenged the FCC’s decision not to review its 1996 health and safety guidelines regarding 5G and wireless harms (guidelines case). The court ruled the FCC’s decision was “capricious and arbitrary,” and that the agency failed to review overwhelming evidence of harm.

The upshot of this decision is that while the FCC guidelines are still in effect, they cannot be considered as an assurance of safety in regard to non-cancer harms.

One of the judges who ruled in favor of CHD in the guidelines case, Patricia Ann Millett, now presides over the three-judge panel in the OTARD case. The other judges are Gregory G. Katsas and A. Raymond Randolph.

During the oral arguments in the guidelines case, Judge Millet expressed concerns the FCC guidelines may not be appropriate for the current wireless reality and that they do not protect against cumulative exposure. Those serious concerns are particularly relevant in regard to the effects of the OTARD deployment.

In its decision to pass the OTARD amendment, the FCC dismissed the issues CHD raised regarding the adverse effects the rule amendment will have by allowing the FCC to hide behind its health guidelines.

The recent court decision, which clearly undermines these guidelines, raises serious questions. Should the FCC be allowed to enable such massive deployment and removal of all laws that aim to protect the public, before the agency proves that its guidelines guarantee the health and safety of the public?

The effects of the OTARD rule amendment are especially concerning for the many who are already aware their injuries and sickness have been caused or aggravated by exposure to the radiation emitted by 5G and other wireless radiation-emitting sources.

For them, the adoption of the OTARD amendment means no place will be safe and they will have nowhere to escape.

The FCC is well aware of the growing reports of severe injuries from wireless, including the development of radiation sickness (also known as electromagnetic sensitivity). But the agency continues to ignore the injured, and the OTARD rule removes all their due process rights.

In an effort to stop the FCC from passing this devastating rule amendment and alerting it once again to the extent of the sickness, in April, CHD filed a 21-page letter with the FCC.

The letter was joined by more than 15,090 people, 6,231 of whom reported they and/or their children developed sickness from this radiation. Many included comments describing tragic stories of sickness and death.

Nevertheless, the FCC ignored the letter and the evidence of injury and quoted its obsolete guidelines to deny this sickness and the rights of the injured.

One of CHD’s main objectives in this case is to force the FCC to acknowledge the sickness and to protect the injured.

CHD’s legal team who have led this case includes attorneys Dafna Tachover, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Scott McCollough. McCollough will argue the case on behalf of CHD in the Dec. 7 hearing.

The case is scheduled for the morning session, which starts at 9:30 a.m. ET. However, both cases are second on the roster of the court in which they are being heard, therefore it is impossible to know the exact time the hearing will start. Most likely, it will not start before 10 a.m. ET.