The FCC asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hold Consumers' Research's challenge of the Q1 2024 USF contribution factor in abeyance until a separate challenge the group filed is decided (see 2401030069), said the commission's motion Friday (docket 24-60006). Consumers' Research previously challenged the Q1 2022 contribution factor, which the court heard en banc in September (see 2309190072). "Because these cases involve the same parties and the same legal issues, it would best serve the interest of judicial economy and efficiency for the court to hold this case in abeyance until it issues a ruling" in the earlier case, the FCC said.
The FCC asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hold Consumers' Research's challenge of the Q1 2024 USF contribution factor in abeyance until a separate challenge the group filed is decided (see 2401030069), said the commission's motion Friday (docket 24-60006). Consumers' Research previously challenged the Q1 2022 contribution factor, which the court heard en banc in September (see 2309190072). "Because these cases involve the same parties and the same legal issues, it would best serve the interest of judicial economy and efficiency for the court to hold this case in abeyance until it issues a ruling" in the earlier case, the FCC said.
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).
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."