If the U.S. Supreme Court uses the FCC USF case as a route for establishing a judicial test about the nondelegation of power, that test should consider the nature of the power being delegated, legal academics say. A Federalist Society panel discussion about the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating part of the USF program and subsequent SCOTUS appeal (see 2411220050) saw speakers discussing how courts have looked at Congress' delegation of its powers to other branches or agencies and the high court's available options.
Eight former FCC commissioners filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court last week urging the justices to overturn the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating part of the USF program. Meanwhile, likely Senate Communications Subcommittee leaders Deb Fischer, R-Neb., and Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., led an amicus brief with 27 other House and Senate lawmakers defending the funding mechanism.
WTA and a group of healthcare entities filed amicus briefs at the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to overturn the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating part of the USF program. The briefs supported arguments of the FCC (see 2501090045), the telecom industry and public interest groups (see 2501100057). Consumer group Public Citizen warned of negative effects beyond the FCC if SCOTUS upholds the 5th Circuit decision. Consumers' Research challenged the contribution factor in the 5th Circuit and other courts.
The telecom industry and public interest groups supported government arguments asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating part of the USF program (see 2501090045). In a decision that sent shock waves through the telecom industry, judges on the conservative circuit agreed with Consumers' Research that USF violates the Constitution by improperly delegating Congress’ power to the FCC and the agency's power to a private company, the Universal Service Administrative Co. (see 2412100060).
The FCC in a U.S. Supreme Court filing defended the USF in general, and the contribution factor more specifically, as the justices prepared to hear what could be the most consequential FCC case in years (see 2412100060). SCOTUS agreed in November to review the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 9-7 en banc decision, which sided with Consumers' Research and found that the USF contribution factor is a "misbegotten tax.”
Two law professors told the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday it should reverse the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 9-7 en banc decision, which found the USF contribution factor is a "misbegotten tax.” SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case, FCC v. Consumers’ Research, which potentially has broad implications, experts say (see 2412100060). Look no further than a 1938 brief by then-Solicitor General Robert Jackson, urged Gerard Magliocca, professor at the Indiana University Law School, and John Barrett, professor of law at St. John’s University, in an amicus brief Friday. They wrote that Jackson, later appointed to SCOTUS, “proposed an elegant solution to the issue now before the Court" when he argued in Currin v. Wallace that "the non-delegation doctrine applies only when Congress delegates power to the President" and "that congressional delegations to federal agencies, independent boards, and private actors are not subject to" the doctrine. Acknowledging that SCOTUS decided Currin without addressing Jackson's theory, they said the court should read his "thoughtful brief" and reverse the 5th Circuit.
Consumers’ Research asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the FCC’s USF contribution factor for Q1 of this year, set by the agency last month. The group, and its allies, had already asked the FCC to zero out the contribution factor (see 2412130016), calling it “an unconstitutional tax raised and spent by an unaccountable federal agency.” The 5th Circuit earlier found in a 9-7 en banc decision that the contribution factor is a "misbegotten tax.” That decision is before the U.S. Supreme Court (see 2412100060). “Congress’s standardless delegation to the FCC of legislative authority to raise and spend nearly unlimited money via the Universal Service Fund violates Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution,” said the filing with the court: USF charges “are taxes and therefore Congress’s standardless delegation to the FCC of authority to raise and spend nearly unlimited taxes violates Article I, section 8” of the Constitution.
Consumers’ Research and other conservative interests last week urged the FCC to zero out the USF contribution factor. Next year, the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear a case that Consumers’ Research brought in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2412100060), which found in a 9-7 en banc decision that the contribution factor is a "misbegotten tax.” Posted Friday in docket 96-45, the filing arrived the day after the FCC Office of Managing Director proposed a contribution factor of 36.3% for Q1 2025 (see 2412120061). The contribution factor “is an unconstitutional tax raised and spent by an unaccountable federal agency -- which in turn has delegated almost all authority over this revenue-raising scheme to a private company registered in Delaware,” the Universal Service Administrative Co. The cost “is ultimately borne by consumers via a separate line item on nearly every phone bill in the country,” the filing said. In its decision, the 5th Circuit found the USAC “sets the USF Tax -- subject only to FCC’s rubber stamp” and the agency lacks "a documented process for checking USAC’s work,” the filing said. Among those endorsing the pleading was Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions, which last year won a SCOTUS case that effectively ended race-based affirmative action policies in American college admissions, and other respondents listed on Consumers’ Research’s initial SCOTUS brief.
Many questions remain about how the U.S. Supreme Court will decide FCC v. Consumers’ Research, lawyers involved in the case said Tuesday during an FCBA webinar. The USF case is expected to be heard in the spring. SCOTUS decided last month to hear a challenge to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 9-7 en banc decision, which found the USF contribution factor is a "misbegotten tax.” Consumers' Research challenged the contribution factor in the 5th Circuit and other courts.
Communications industry executives and former federal officials said during a Practising Law Institute event Tuesday they see a likely GOP-led budget reconciliation package next year as a potential vehicle for legislation that would reinstate the FCC’s lapsed spectrum auction authority. House Commerce Committee leaders and Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., have repeatedly attempted to reinstate the authority during this Congress only to have their efforts stall (see 2409170066).