Consumers' Research Executive Director Will Hild expressed confidence after the U.S. Supreme Court heard the group’s challenge of the USF contribution factor in lengthy oral arguments Wednesday (see 2503260061).

Trent McCotter, the lawyer for Consumers’ Research, faced tough questions during lengthy oral arguments Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court on the group’s challenge of the USF contribution factor and the USF in general. Sarah Harris, acting U.S. solicitor general, vigorously defended the USF on behalf of the government. Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy, a high-profile conservative appellate lawyer, represented industry defenders of the USF.

Lawyers for the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition and the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society were cautiously optimistic Wednesday that their side would prevail at the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the FCC and the USF contribution factor in FCC v. Consumers’ Research. But they also expect a divided decision. SCOTUS is to consider the case March 26.

The government defended the FCC in a reply brief in FCC v. Consumers’ Research, the USF case before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Consumers' Research (CR) creates a “straw man” to attack. Public interest groups, led by the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, also defended the legality of how the USF contribution factor is calculated. SCOTUS is set to hear oral argument March 26.

The FCC Office of Managing Director announced Thursday a proposed Q2 USF contribution factor of 36.6%, as calculated by the Universal Service Administrative Co. That’s up from 36.3% the previous quarter and the highest quarterly contribution factor in the program's history. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear FCC v. Consumers’ Research March 26, a case about the contribution factor's legality.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous but narrow opinion Friday that reimbursement requests submitted to the E-rate program, administered by the Universal Service Administrative Co., can be considered “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA). The decision in Wisconsin Bell v. U.S. reaffirmed the ruling of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Elena Kagan, one of three justices appointed by a Democratic president, wrote the opinion.

WTA members are concerned about the uncertainty stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court review of FCC v. Consumers' Research, a case that could invalidate how the USF program is funded (see 2501090045), as well as the future of the enhanced alternative connect America cost model program, representatives from the group said in a meeting with aides to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. WTA members also “raised the need for addressing both USF contribution and distribution reform,” said a filing posted Wednesday in docket 10-90. “The current contribution factor is above 36% and is unsustainable, and therefore the Commission should look to assess [broadband internet access service] providers and work with Congress to have edge providers and others who should be contributing to USF do so in order to bring the contribution factor down and be spread equitably among all users.” The WTA members also reported on meetings with aides to Commissioners Nathan Simington and Anna Gomez.

Consumers’ Research is getting support from other right-of-center groups as it pushes a legal theory at the U.S. Supreme Court that poses a challenge to the USF's future. SCOTUS will hear FCC v. Consumers' Research on March 26, challenging the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating how the USF program is funded (see 2501090045).

Consumers’ Research, the conservative group that is a self-described opponent of “woke” culture, told the U.S. Supreme Court that the way the FCC assesses payments for the USF is “a historic anomaly at odds with 600 years of Anglo-American practice.” SCOTUS will hear FCC v. Consumers' Research March 26, challenging the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating part of the USF program (see 2501090045), in part because the FCC delegated authority for overseeing the program to the Universal Service Administrative Co.

Three conservative groups on Tuesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to use its upcoming decision in FCC v. Consumers' Research to provide clarity on when agencies can delegate authority to private companies. SCOTUS will consider the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating part of the USF program (see 2501090045), in part because the FCC delegated authority for overseeing the program to the Universal Service Administrative Co. (see 2412100060).