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.
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.
Congress "handed over its taxing power without statutory limits" to the FCC, an agency "constrained only by its own precatory 'aspirations', and then for good measure let the agency redefine its own scope of taxing authority," Consumers' Research told the U.S. Supreme Court in a cert petition Friday (docket 23-456) challenging the FCC's USF contribution factor (see 2308030071). The group warned that the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the 2021 Q4 contribution factor and the 5th Circuit's rehearing of the Q1 2022 USF contribution factor were "portending" a circuit "split." It asked SCOTUS to "grant review and reverse" the lower court's decision upholding the contribution methodology, calling USF the "poster child for the problems that result from the delegation of constitutionally vested authority."
Congress "handed over its taxing power without statutory limits" to the FCC, an agency "constrained only by its own precatory 'aspirations', and then for good measure let the agency redefine its own scope of taxing authority," Consumers' Research told the U.S. Supreme Court in a cert petition Friday (docket 23-456) challenging the FCC's USF contribution factor (see 2308030071). The group warned that the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the 2021 Q4 contribution factor and the 5th Circuit's rehearing of the Q1 2022 USF contribution factor were "portending" a circuit "split." It asked SCOTUS to "grant review and reverse" the lower court's decision upholding the contribution methodology, calling USF the "poster child for the problems that result from the delegation of constitutionally vested authority."
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a joint motion from the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, Center for Media Justice and National Digital Inclusion Alliance to intervene on behalf of the FCC in Consumers' Research's new challenge of the USF Q4 2023 contribution factor (see 2310030069). An order posted Monday in case 23-60525 was denied "without prejudice" should the groups want to file amicus curiae.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a joint motion from the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, Center for Media Justice and National Digital Inclusion Alliance to intervene on behalf of the FCC in Consumers' Research's new challenge of the USF Q4 2023 contribution factor (see 2310030069). An order posted Monday in case 23-60525 was denied "without prejudice" should the groups want to file amicus curiae.
Washington state’s argument for taxing federal Lifeline support depends on the Washington Supreme Court agreeing that the Universal Service Administrative Co. is not the U.S. government’s instrumentality, agreed Deputy Solicitor General Cynthia Alexander, representing the state revenue department, at oral argument Thursday. State justices zeroed in on this question -- and practical impacts -- as they weighed whether federal Lifeline funds subsidizing low-income consumers’ phone lines are subject to the state’s retail sales tax.
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.