The FCC’s respondent brief in Consumers’ Research’s 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals challenge of the USF rules (see 2110050056) is due Dec. 5, said an order Friday in docket 21-3886. An optional reply from Consumers’ Research is due 21 days later, said the order. Consumer’s Research also has a similar ongoing case in the 5th Circuit.
A Consumers' Research brief is due Dec. 27 at the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in its Oct. 6 petition for review of the FCC's USF 2022 Q4 contribution factor on grounds that it's illegal and should be rejected, said a memorandum Thursday (docket 22-13315). The petition argued that the contribution factor exceeds the commission's statutory authority under the delegation doctrine and is considered a tax. Consumers' Research filed multiple objections with the FCC on its proposed quarterly contribution factors and previously filed petitions for review before the 5th and 6th U.S. Circuit courts on behalf of itself and several individuals.
USTelecom, NTCA and the Competitive Carriers Association defended a directive in Section 254 of the Telecom Act that the FCC preserve and advance universal service, in a pleading Friday in response to a challenge by Consumers’ Research to the broader USF program (see 2110050056). “Under the Supreme Court’s approach for reviewing nondelegation challenges, Section 254 falls well within constitutional bounds,” the groups told the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: “Section 254 prescribes far more detailed directions than other statutes that have repeatedly been upheld by the Supreme Court over the past century. Even under a more searching standard -- which could be adopted only by the Supreme Court -- Section 254 still would pass constitutional muster.”
A 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last week against the SEC could have implications for FCC enforcement actions and the powers of administrative law judges like the FCC’s ALJ Jane Halprin, but it is too early to be sure how the ruling against the SEC applies to other agencies, said academics and communications attorneys in interviews. Based on that Jarkesy v. SEC decision, U.S. Supreme Court rulings and a pair of cases currently before SCOTUS, the outlook for ALJs at federal agencies -- including the FCC -- “looks a little shaky,” said Jeffrey Lubbers, an administrative law professor at American University. “I’d be surprised if this decision is the final word,” said former FCC General Counsel Tom Johnson, now with Wiley.
The FCC repeated its request that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit hold Consumers' Research's challenge to the Q4 USF contribution factor in abeyance, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's decision to proceed with a similar challenge, said a letter Friday in case 21-3886 (see 2203020033). The agency said the parties can "suggest how the case in this court should proceed" after the 5th Circuit's ruling and the FCC's USF report. It also asked the court to reject Consumers' Research's request that the FCC respond to the group's agency comment within 30 days, saying Consumers' Research "effectively seek[s] a writ of mandamus" without attempting to "justify such extraordinary relief" or providing a basis to "override the FCC's broad discretion to order its proceedings."
Consumers' Research asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to deny the FCC's motion to hold its challenge to the Q4 USF contribution factor in abeyance or order the FCC to respond to its agency comments within 30 days, said a letter Wednesday in case 21-3886 (see 2201140051). The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a similar motion Wednesday from the FCC on Consumers' Research's challenge to the USF Q1 contribution factor in case 22-60008.
Huawei believes the U.S. should “put the evidence out there” to justify recent actions to curb the presence of the Chinese telecom gear vendor’s products on U.S. networks, the company's U.S. Chief Security Officer Andy Purdy said during an episode of C-SPAN’s The Communicators set to telecast this weekend. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Friday denied Huawei’s challenge to the FCC ban of its equipment from networks funded by the USF (see 2106220053). Commissioners are to vote July 13 on congressionally mandated changes to its system for replacing insecure U.S. network equipment from Huawei and fellow Chinese vendor ZTE (see 2106210062). U.S. restrictions hurt Huawei “pretty badly in terms of our ability to do business” in the country, Purdy said. “Things are not going very well.” If “Huawei has done bad things, show us” so “the whole world can see so that they don’t just need to create incentives” not to buy Huawei products, he said. “There is not such evidence” and there “is no connection” between Huawei and the Chinese government “other than any other company around the world would have.” The U.S. shouldn’t “do things” like the FCC did in using “predictive judgment” to justify its anti-Huawei actions, Purdy said. “That’s not really consistent with the rule of law approach” that federal agencies generally employ.
Huawei believes the U.S. should “put the evidence out there” to justify recent actions to curb the presence of the Chinese telecom gear vendor’s products on U.S. networks, the company's U.S. Chief Security Officer Andy Purdy said during an episode of C-SPAN’s The Communicators set to telecast this weekend. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Friday denied Huawei’s challenge to the FCC ban of its equipment from networks funded by the USF (see 2106220053). Commissioners are to vote July 13 on congressionally mandated changes to its system for replacing insecure U.S. network equipment from Huawei and fellow Chinese vendor ZTE (see 2106210062). U.S. restrictions hurt Huawei “pretty badly in terms of our ability to do business” in the country, Purdy said. “Things are not going very well.” If “Huawei has done bad things, show us” so “the whole world can see so that they don’t just need to create incentives” not to buy Huawei products, he said. “There is not such evidence” and there “is no connection” between Huawei and the Chinese government “other than any other company around the world would have.” The U.S. shouldn’t “do things” like the FCC did in using “predictive judgment” to justify its anti-Huawei actions, Purdy said. “That’s not really consistent with the rule of law approach” that federal agencies generally employ.
Huawei believes the U.S. should “put the evidence out there” to justify recent actions to curb the presence of the Chinese telecom gear vendor’s products on U.S. networks, the company's U.S. Chief Security Officer Andy Purdy said during an episode of C-SPAN’s The Communicators set to telecast this weekend. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Friday denied Huawei’s challenge to the FCC ban of its equipment from networks funded by the USF (see 2106220053). Commissioners are to vote July 13 on congressionally mandated changes to its system for replacing insecure U.S. network equipment from Huawei and fellow Chinese vendor ZTE (see 2106210062). U.S. restrictions hurt Huawei “pretty badly in terms of our ability to do business” in the country, Purdy said. “Things are not going very well.” If “Huawei has done bad things, show us” so “the whole world can see so that they don’t just need to create incentives” not to buy Huawei products, he said. “There is not such evidence” and there “is no connection” between Huawei and the Chinese government “other than any other company around the world would have.” The U.S. shouldn’t “do things” like the FCC did in using “predictive judgment” to justify its anti-Huawei actions, Purdy said. “That’s not really consistent with the rule of law approach” that federal agencies generally employ.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Huawei’s challenge to the FCC ban of the Chinese telecom gear vendor's equipment from networks funded by the Universal Service Fund under its national security supply chain rules (see 1911220064). Huawei sought the review in December. “If we were convinced that the FCC is here acting as ‘a sort of junior-varsity’ State Department,” the court “would set the rule aside,” Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan said Friday for the three-judge panel. “But no such skullduggery is afoot. Assessing security risks to telecom networks falls in the FCC’s wheelhouse.” Huawei is “disappointed” by the ruling and is “assessing” its “options to respond,” a spokesperson emailed: The company continues “to believe the FCC acted without authority in changing” its USF rules. The FCC didn’t comment. Wiley’s Tom Johnson, former FCC general counsel, said he’s “proud to have represented” the U.S. “in this important case.” Matthew Berry, who was chief of staff to then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, also praised the ruling.