At the behest of T-Mobile US, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to review a decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that allows local government authorities to deny wireless tower siting applications without providing a detailed written explanation for the ruling. The case at hand (T- Mobile South v. City of Roswell) concerns the decision of the Roswell, Georgia city council to deny T-Mobile’s request to build a 108-foot wireless transmission tower in the city.  Citing Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) of the 1934 Communications Act, which requires state and local governments to explain any decision that denies a request for wireless facility siting “in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record,” T-Mobile appealed the council’s decision to a federal district court. That tribunal ruled in the carrier’s favor and ordered the city to issue the permit. That pronouncement, however, was eventually overturned by the Eleventh Circuit, which decreed that the city had complied with the requirements of Section 332(c) by conveying to T-Mobile a general letter of denial that was accompanied by a transcript of the hearings. In petitioning for certiorari, T-Mobile pointed to a division among the federal circuit courts on the interpretation of Section 332(c), observing that the First, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits have held that Section 332(c) “requires a denial of a permit application to ‘contain a sufficient explanation of the reasons for the permit denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence.” To the contrary, T-Mobile noted that the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits have concluded that “a denial letter need only advise the applicant of the fact that the permit has been denied.” Although T-Mobile warned that a ruling in the city’s favor “will seriously impede the deployment of wireless services to customers,” the city argued in a reply brief that “it is the local governments who would be harmed, as they would be forced to allow cellular towers in the heart of their residential communities based upon a mere technicality.” Asserting that wireless carriers are “too often faced with local requirements contrary to federal law that frustrate our ability to get critical wireless technologies deployed,” former FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, in his current capacity as president of wireless infrastructure association PCIA, welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court “to address a circuit split that has created ongoing and undue delay and expense in the roll-out and upgrade of wireless broadband facilities” for fourth-generation LTE services.