The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that local health authorities cannot require changes to a Verizon cell tower that complies with federal radiofrequency limits. The ruling affirmed a lower court decision in a case brought by Pittsfield residents who said the tower made them sick, and the court said they must seek a remedy at the federal level, according to Children’s Health Defense. [1]
According to the ruling, federal law preempts state and local action on radiofrequency emissions from facilities that meet Federal Communications Commission standards. The question of whether FCC radiation guidelines preempt state safety and health laws has been “left unresolved for more than a decade,” allowing telecommunication companies to avoid facing personal injury claims, according to plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Apple. [2]
Pittsfield Residents and the Verizon Tower
Verizon installed a 115-foot cell tower in the “Shacktown” section of Pittsfield in 2020, according to residents and court documents. The tower was activated in August 2020, and health complaints started rolling in within weeks, according to a report by Peter Elkind. [3] Residents reported symptoms including migraines, dizziness, nausea, and sleeplessness, and some said they left their homes to escape the symptoms. [3]
The Pittsfield Board of Health voted unanimously on Feb. 2, 2022, to issue a cease-and-desist order to Verizon after concluding the tower’s radiation was harming residents, the board said. [4] Verizon sued to overturn the order, and the board later voted behind closed doors to rescind it, according to Children’s Health Defense. [5]
Lawyers working on behalf of Children’s Health Defense filed a motion to intervene in the legal battle on behalf of six Pittsfield residents in May 2022, seeking to join the dispute over the company’s refusal to remove or relocate the tower. [6]
Court Decisions and Federal Preemption
A Berkshire County Superior Court judge ruled against the residents on Sept. 3, 2024, stating the board was preempted from regulating the tower. The judge said the plaintiffs must seek relief from the Federal Communications Commission, not the court system, according to the ruling. [7]
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court ruling, citing Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 704 bars state and local governments from regulating wireless facility placement based on radiofrequency emissions when the facility complies with FCC rules. The justices said allowing local regulation could threaten national uniformity in wireless service, according to the ruling. [1]
Citizens groups have previously participated in administrative and judicial challenges to FCC regulations concerning the environmental and health effects of radio frequency emissions from cellular facilities, according to a 2000 forum on cell towers and the law. [8]
Attorney Says Federal Remedy Is Not Realistic
W. Scott McCollough, lead litigator for Children’s Health Defense and attorney for the plaintiffs, said the court told residents there is no remedy at the state level. McCollough said the FCC has no statutory process for individual complaints of this kind and historically has prioritized industry interests, he told The Defender. [7]
McCollough said the FCC on July 22 adopted a fourfold increase in wireless device power limits without first conducting a public health analysis. The FCC also has not complied with a 2021 court order directing it to review 11,000 pages of evidence on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation, McCollough said. [1]
Two Massachusetts towns voted to put a hold on 5G cell tower projects until the FCC completes the court-ordered review of the latest science on the effect of radiofrequency radiation emissions on human health and the environment, according to Children’s Health Defense. [9]
FCC Limits and Next Steps
The FCC has not updated its radiofrequency radiation limits in 30 years, and the limits are based on short-term animal studies from 1977, 1982, and 1984, according to Miriam Eckenfels, director of Children’s Health Defense’s EMR and Wireless Program. Eckenfels said the families near the Pittsfield tower were injured at a fraction of the FCC’s allowed radiation, and the agency currently has no limit accounting for long-term exposure. [3]
Many of the FCC’s functions “uncomfortably intersect with public health issues that are far beyond its purview and expertise,” according to a 2000 forum on cell towers. [8] In a 1993 letter to the FCC, Margo T. Oge, director of the EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, recommended against adopting the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard, according to the book “Warning: The Electricity Around You May Be Hazardous to Your Health.” [10] Public discussion of the issue has included a documentary series focused on electromagnetic radiation effects on human health, including 5G towers and electrosensitivity, according to an interview with Nick Pinault on Brighteon Broadcast News. [11]
Children’s Health Defense is leading the “704 No More” campaign to legally challenge Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit against Apple that sought to determine whether FCC radiofrequency radiation guidelines preempt state safety and health laws, according to Children’s Health Defense. [12] A WHO-backed review found conclusive evidence that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from cellphones cause malignant gliomas and heart schwannomas in animals, according to a report in NaturalNews.com. [13] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court decision dismissing a lawsuit alleging that wireless radiation caused sickness, depriving Americans of legal remedies under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to a report by Willow Tohi in NaturalNews.com. [14] Until Section 704 is challenged successfully, the wireless industry retains immunity from state lawsuits alleging harm, McCollough said. [7]
References
- Children’s Health Defense. “Top Massachusetts Court Deals Blow to Residents Battling Verizon Cell Tower”. July 31, 2026.
- Children’s Health Defense. “CHD Asks US Supreme Court to Rule in Cellphone Radiation Preemption Case”.
- Peter Elkind. “How the FCC Protects Cellphone Companies, Ignores Public Safety”. Children’s Health Defense.
- Children’s Health Defense. “Massachusetts Town Threatens Verizon With Cease-and-Desist Order Over Cell Tower”.
- Children’s Health Defense. “Massachusetts Town Gives Up Fight Against Verizon Cell Tower That Residents Allege Caused Illness”.
- Children’s Health Defense. “CHD Supports Pittsfield, Mass. Residents Seeking to Intervene in Cell Tower Lawsuit Against Verizon”.
- Children’s Health Defense. “Judge Rules Against Residents of Massachusetts Town Who Allege Verizon Cell Tower Is Causing Illness”.
- “Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience or Environmental Hazard”. Cell Towers Forum State of the Science/State of the Law 2000, Litchfield, Conn.
- Children’s Health Defense. “Two Massachusetts Towns Call a Halt to 5G Towers Until FCC Complies With Court Order to Review Science”.
- Ellen Sugarman. “Warning: The Electricity Around You May Be Hazardous to Your Health: How to Protect Yourself From Electromagnetic Fields”.
- Mike Adams. “Mike Adams Interview With Nick Pinault”. Brighteon Broadcast News. August 1, 2024.
- Children’s Health Defense. “US Supreme Court Won’t Hear Apple Cellphone Radiation Case”.
- NaturalNews.com. “Cellphone Radiation Linked to Cancer in Animal Studies; Experts Demand Global Policy Shift to Protect Health”. April 30, 2025.
- Willow Tohi. “Federal Appeals Court Rules Telecom Companies Are Not Liable for Cell Tower Radiation Sickness Under ADA, Depriving Americans of Legal Remedies”. NaturalNews.com. May 21, 2025.
Explainer Infographic
Read full article here