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).

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday scheduled oral argument for March 26 in the government’s challenge of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 9-7 en banc decision last year that sided with Consumers' Research and found that the USF contribution factor is a "misbegotten tax.” SCOTUS agreed in November to hear what some see as the most consequential FCC case in years (see 2412100060). Members of Congress, former FCC commissioners, ISPs and public interest groups are among those urging SCOTUS to overturn the 5th Circuit decision.

If the U.S. Supreme Court uses the FCC USF case as a route for establishing a judicial test about the nondelegation of power, that test should consider the nature of the power being delegated, legal academics say. A Federalist Society panel discussion about the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating part of the USF program and subsequent SCOTUS appeal (see 2411220050) saw speakers discussing how courts have looked at Congress' delegation of its powers to other branches or agencies and the high court's available options.

Eight former FCC commissioners filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court last week urging the justices to overturn the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating part of the USF program. Meanwhile, likely Senate Communications Subcommittee leaders Deb Fischer, R-Neb., and Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., led an amicus brief with 27 other House and Senate lawmakers defending the funding mechanism.

WTA and a group of healthcare entities filed amicus briefs at the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to overturn the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating part of the USF program. The briefs supported arguments of the FCC (see 2501090045), the telecom industry and public interest groups (see 2501100057). Consumer group Public Citizen warned of negative effects beyond the FCC if SCOTUS upholds the 5th Circuit decision. Consumers' Research challenged the contribution factor in the 5th Circuit and other courts.

The telecom industry and public interest groups supported government arguments asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating part of the USF program (see 2501090045). In a decision that sent shock waves through the telecom industry, judges on the conservative circuit agreed with Consumers' Research that USF violates the Constitution by improperly delegating Congress’ power to the FCC and the agency's power to a private company, the Universal Service Administrative Co. (see 2412100060).

The FCC in a U.S. Supreme Court filing defended the USF in general, and the contribution factor more specifically, as the justices prepared to hear what could be the most consequential FCC case in years (see 2412100060). SCOTUS agreed in November to review the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 9-7 en banc decision, which sided with Consumers' Research and found that the USF contribution factor is a "misbegotten tax.”

Two law professors told the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday it should reverse the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 9-7 en banc decision, which found the USF contribution factor is a "misbegotten tax.” SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case, FCC v. Consumers’ Research, which potentially has broad implications, experts say (see 2412100060). Look no further than a 1938 brief by then-Solicitor General Robert Jackson, urged Gerard Magliocca, professor at the Indiana University Law School, and John Barrett, professor of law at St. John’s University, in an amicus brief Friday. They wrote that Jackson, later appointed to SCOTUS, “proposed an elegant solution to the issue now before the Court" when he argued in Currin v. Wallace that "the non-delegation doctrine applies only when Congress delegates power to the President" and "that congressional delegations to federal agencies, independent boards, and private actors are not subject to" the doctrine. Acknowledging that SCOTUS decided Currin without addressing Jackson's theory, they said the court should read his "thoughtful brief" and reverse the 5th Circuit.