Consumers' Research filed a new challenge of the FCC's Q1 2024 USF contribution factor in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday. It's the third time the group challenged a contribution factor with this court (see 2310030069). The contribution methodology and ultimate quarterly factor "exceed the FCC's statutory authority" and violate the nondelegation doctrine, the group said in its petition for review (docket 24-60006).
Communications Litigation Today is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2023. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Consumers' Research told the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a letter filed Monday (docket 22-60008), that it disagrees with the 11th Circuit's Dec. 14 opinion that Communications Act Section 254 contains a "sufficient 'intelligible principle'" (see 2312140058). The group said Section 254 is unconstitutional because it allows the FCC to "daisy-chain its power." Consumers' Research also disagreed with the 11th Circuit's ruling on its nondelegation challenge, saying that "letting private proposals automatically become binding ... is the definition of a private nondelegation violation."
Consumers' Research told the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a letter filed Monday (docket 22-60008), that it disagrees with the 11th Circuit's Dec. 14 opinion that Communications Act Section 254 contains a "sufficient 'intelligible principle'" (see 2312140058). The group said Section 254 is unconstitutional because it allows the FCC to "daisy-chain its power." Consumers' Research also disagreed with the 11th Circuit's ruling on its nondelegation challenge, saying that "letting private proposals automatically become binding ... is the definition of a private nondelegation violation."
The FCC didn't violate the nondelegation doctrine when it used the Universal Service Administrative Co. to calculate quarterly USF contribution factors and administer USF programs, a federal court ruled Thursday. In denying Consumers' Research's challenge of the FCC contribution factor (see 2306220062), the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals noted "all USAC action is subordinate to the FCC, and the FCC retains ultimate decision-making power."
The FCC didn't violate the nondelegation doctrine when it used the Universal Service Administrative Co. to calculate quarterly USF contribution factors and administer USF programs, a federal court ruled Thursday. In denying Consumers' Research's challenge of the FCC contribution factor (see 2306220062), the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals noted "all USAC action is subordinate to the FCC, and the FCC retains ultimate decision-making power."
The FCC didn't violate the nondelegation doctrine through its use of the Universal Service Administrative Co. to calculate quarterly USF contribution factors and administer USF programs, a federal court ruled Thursday. In denying Consumers' Research's challenge of the FCC contribution factor (see 2306220062), the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals noted that "all USAC action is subordinate to the FCC, and the FCC retains ultimate decision-making power."
The FCC's USF funding mechanism "violates the original understanding of the nondelegation doctrine, the modern intelligible-principle doctrine, and the private nondelegation doctrine" (see 2310060069), Consumers' Research told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a reply brief Thursday (docket 23-1091). The court should "make clear that Congress cannot delegate such power, let alone to a private entity," the group said.
The FCC's USF funding mechanism "violates the original understanding of the nondelegation doctrine, the modern intelligible-principle doctrine, and the private nondelegation doctrine" (see 2310060069), Consumers' Research told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a reply brief Thursday (docket 23-1091). The court should "make clear that Congress cannot delegate such power, let alone to a private entity," the group said.