The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority surprised no one Friday, issuing a decision decided on ideological lines that overrules the Chevron doctrine. Chevron gave agencies like the FCC and FTC deference in interpreting laws that Congress approved. On the penultimate day of its term, the court released a decision that wraps together Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Commerce. Both cases concern fishing regulations but were used as a vehicle for overturning Chevron.
Major Questions Doctrine
State lawmakers may be more inclined to pursue broadband affordability policies in the wake of recent FCC and court rulings as well as last month's ending of the federal affordable connectivity program (ACP), multiple telecom experts said last week. Connecticut Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D) told Communications Daily he hopes “these developments will lead to stronger support in 2025” for an affordable broadband proposal that failed this year. However, some anticipate ISPs will likely object, and fiscal constraints could limit states' efforts.
CTIA, the Ohio Telecom Association, USTelecom, NCTA, the Wireless ISP Association and other ISP groups asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court to stay the FCC’s net neutrality order (see 2406100044). The FCC wants to move the case to the D.C. Circuit and has declined to stay the order, which takes effect July 22. The agency “has asserted total authority over how Americans access the Internet,” according to a joint motion filed Monday (docket 24-3450). “That is not hyperbole,” the groups said. The order “is only the latest jolt in a decade of regulatory whiplash for ISPs,” the associations said. After nearly 20 years of a light-touch approach to regulating the internet, in 2015 the FCC asserted for the first time authority over high-speed internet access service under Title II of the Communications Act, the filing said: Before the U.S. Supreme Court “could weigh in, a new Administration reverted to the traditional light-touch approach. Now, after another change in Administration, the Commission is back to a heavy hand, promising to make even more aggressive use of its claimed powers.” The court should stay “the latest flip-flop pending judicial review” since “petitioners are overwhelmingly likely to succeed on the merits,” the ISPs said. They argue that the order should be rejected under the Supreme Court’s evolving major questions doctrine. “Because the Commission cannot point to clear congressional authorization for applying common-carrier regulation to the Internet, the Order is unlawful,” they said.
The FCC urged the 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court Friday to move the challenge to the FCC’s net neutrality order to the D.C. Circuit (docket 24-3450). The FCC also issued an order declining to stay the rules, which take effect July 22, pending judicial review.
Selection of the 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court to hear industry challenges to the net neutrality order may bode well for industry. Still, many questions remain, including which judges will hear the case and whether arguments are ultimately held in the Ohio-based court, industry experts said Friday.
A coalition of industry groups on Friday challenged the FCC's net neutrality order and declaratory ruling reclassifying broadband as a Communications Act Title II telecom service (see 2405310074). The coalition asked the FCC to stay the effective date of its order and declaratory ruling pending judicial review. Coalition members included USTelecom, NCTA, CTIA, ACA Connects and several state broadband associations.
A coalition of industry groups on Friday challenged the FCC's net neutrality order and declaratory ruling reclassifying broadband as a Communications Act Title II telecom service.
The FCC’s digital discrimination broadband order “is illegal on at least three grounds,” the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Washington Legal Foundation said in an 8th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court amicus brief Tuesday (docket 24-1179). The brief supports the 20 industry petitioners that seek to vacate the order as unlawful (see 2404230032). When Congress grants lawmaking authority to a federal agency, it must lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the agency can conform, according to the brief. Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directs the FCC to adopt rules that facilitate equal access to broadband, including by preventing digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion or national origin, it said. The industry petitioners “persuasively explain” that Section 60506's language doesn’t permit the FCC to implement disparate impact liability, it said. But if it did, then that language violates the nondelegation doctrine by failing to provide an intelligible principle governing such liability, it said. “Virtually any action that a regulated entity can take will have a disparate impact along one or more dimensions of income level, race, ethnicity, color, or religion,” said the brief. That’s especially true because of the inclusion of income level, “which means that any decision by a covered entity lowering or raising prices will have a disparate impact based on income and thus come within the FCC’s enforcement authority,” it said. The authority to promulgate disparate impact rules “is a major question to which Congress is required to speak clearly,” it said. Because Congress didn’t speak “clearly to this particular question” in the statute, the FCC’s order is “invalid,” it said. The order also requires covered entities to “treat people differently based on race, in violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection,” it said.
The Universal Service Administrative Co's. (USAC) role in administering the FCC's Universal Service Fund programs "is purely administrative," the FCC told the U.S. Supreme Court in response to Consumers' Research's challenge of how the commission determines quarterly contribution factors (see 2401100044). USAC "must comply with detailed regulations issued by the FCC" and "helps the FCC compute the amount of each quarterly payment" carriers must contribute, the agency said in an opposition brief filed in docket 23-456.
Catholic broadcasters and groups filed two petitions for reconsideration against the FCC’s equal employment opportunity order in part because it updates Form 395-B to account for nonbinary employees.