NetChoice and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) filed dueling motions for summary judgment Friday (docket 2:24-cv-00047) in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio over the state's social media parental notification law. NetChoice’s motion seeks to permanently block the statute on constitutional grounds, while Yost’s motion defends the law as "valid," and argues for its enforcement.
Twenty Republican attorneys general support the 20 industry petitioners asking the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the FCC’s digital discrimination order on grounds it exceeds agency authority and lacks clear congressional intent (see 2404230032). The AGs made their argument in an amicus brief Thursday (docket 24-1179).
The American Civil Rights Project supports the 20 industry petitioners arguing that the 8th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court should vacate the FCC’s digital discrimination broadband rule since it runs afoul of the law and isn’t based on clear congressional intent (see 2404230032), according to the nonprofit’s amicus brief. It was filed Wednesday in docket 24-1179.
The American Civil Rights Project supports the 20 industry petitioners arguing that the 8th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court should vacate the FCC’s digital discrimination broadband rule since it runs afoul of the law and isn’t based on clear congressional intent (see 2404230032), according to the nonprofit’s amicus brief. It was filed Wednesday in docket 24-1179.
The FCC’s digital discrimination rule “has gone far beyond what Congress intended” when it enacted the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the National Association of Manufacturers said in an amicus brief Tuesday (docket 24-1179) in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief supports the 20 industry petitioners that want the rule vacated as unlawful in part, they say, because the FCC imposed it without clear congressional intent (see 2404230032).
The FCC’s digital discrimination rule “has gone far beyond what Congress intended” when it enacted the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the National Association of Manufacturers said in an amicus brief Tuesday (docket 24-1179) in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief supports the 20 industry petitioners that want the rule vacated as unlawful in part, they say, because the FCC imposed it without clear congressional intent (see 2404230032).
TechFreedom urged the FCC not to use an “obscure provision” on digital discrimination, buried deep in the “enormous” Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, to “smuggle onerous common-carrier regulations” onto the internet. TechFreedom’s position was detailed as part of an amicus brief Tuesday (docket 24-1179) in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Foundation for Moral Law, a religious liberties nonprofit, thinks that the federal government’s handling of COVID-19 information “has led to unprecedented infringements on our fundamental freedoms,” said its U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief Monday (docket 23-1062) in Changizi v. Department of Health and Human Services.
TechFreedom urged the FCC not to use an “obscure provision” on digital discrimination, buried deep in the “enormous” Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, to “smuggle onerous common-carrier regulations” onto the internet. TechFreedom’s position was detailed as part of an amicus brief Tuesday (docket 24-1179) in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
NTCA takes special interest in the impact of the FCC’s Nov. 20 digital discrimination order on its small-business members, the association’s amicus brief argued in the 8th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court (docket 24-1179) said Monday. The brief supports the 20 industry petitioners that want the order vacated as unlawful (see 2404230032). The “potential adverse effects” of the order implementing Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act “risk particular impact to small businesses that generally lack access to resources and economies of scale that can enable larger businesses to absorb substantial market or regulatory changes,” NTCA’s brief said. But those impacts “are neither envisioned nor authorized by the statute, whose language contemplates a far more limited scope of implementation,” it said. Compliance with certain of the standards presented in the FCC’s order “is effectively impossible since the processes by which those measures can be achieved are wholly inconsistent with the normal and ordinary practices within which NTCA members conduct their business,” it added. The standards contemplate the ability of small private businesses “to have access to the confidential business considerations of other businesses,” it said: “This result, too, is neither contemplated nor accommodated in the statutory language.” The 8th Circuit should hold the order as "unlawful" and set it aside, said NTCA.