1. “Whether the trial court erred in holding that it possesses jurisdiction to entertain Ligado’s takings claims despite the Communications Act’s comprehensive remedial scheme.”
2. “Whether the trial court erred in holding that Ligado’s FCC license constitutes a cognizable property interest for takings purposes.”
3. “Whether a plaintiff such as Ligado pleads a plausible takings claim when it alleges that a taking occurred because the Government acted unlawfully.”
4. “Whether the trial court erred in holding that FCC-licensed spectrum can be the subject of a physical takings claim.”
1, 3. “We conclude, in agreement with the Claims Court, that it had jurisdiction and that the takings claim met the authority requirement for such a claim.”
2, 4. “[W]e do not decide the key issue of whether the requirement of a property right protected by the Takings Clause has been met here, or the follow-on categorization issue whether a physical taking has been alleged. As to those issues, we conclude that the parties have presented arguments at too high a level of generality and with insufficient focus on the specifics of the statute at issue and of actions taken under it. We vacate the Claims Court’s rulings regarding those issues and remand for the parties to litigate the key issues through an analysis having the focus required for a fully informed decision about whether the government or Ligado is correct.”
