Court case

For several years now, a well-funded litigation group has sought an appellate court decision deeming the current method of funding the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Fund unconstitutional. The litigants finally hit paydirt in an enbanc appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled in their favor on a 9-7 vote. The litigants ostensibly expressed concerns about constitutional rights, economic freedom, what constitutes a tax, how specific a congressional delegation of authority has to be, and the extent to which the FCC could lawfully delegate administration of

In a ruling that quickly caused shock waves in the U.S. telecommunications industry, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, 9-7, that the Universal Service Fund (USF) is unconstitutional as currently administered. The Court explained its ruling by saying that the USF is a “misbegotten tax” that violates Article I, § 1 of the Constitution, which states that all legislative powers are given to Congress, which is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

After the Fifth Circuit ruled, 9-7, that the Universal Service Fund is unconstitutional as currently administered, we've seen the following responses.

After a Supreme Court stacked with Trump-appointed justices overturned the 40-year-old Chevron deference doctrine, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Edward Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Stop Corporate Capture Act (SCCA). The SCCA codifies the Chevron doctrine and strengthens the rulemaking process to block corporations from hijacking our government. The legislation would:

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote overturned the landmark decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, sharply limiting the authority of federal administrative agencies including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). After the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, it will be easier to challenge and overturn agency decisions, and federal agencies will be more hesitant to adopt new regulations absent clear Congressional direction.

TBlair Levin, analyst for New Street Research and former chief of staff at the FCC, discusses the Supreme Court's June 28 decision striking down Chevron deference (a.k.a, the Loper Bright decision), and the implications for the telecommunications industry at large.

The telecommunications industry has unleashed a barrage of lawsuits designed to block a major policy goal of the Biden administration, a new internet-fairness regime it hopes to lock down ahead of the November election. The conflict is likely to drag on through the rest of 2024, showcasing the kind of behind-the-scenes Washington fight that can flare in an election year as a White House tries to cement its legacy. The suits opened a new front in the battle over “net neutrality,” a policy the Federal Communications Commission voted to adopt in April.

The Supreme Court's decision limiting executive branch power also further hobbled U.S.

The Supreme Court gave companies more time to challenge many regulations, ruling that a six-year statute of limitations for filing lawsuits begins when a regulation first affects a company rather than when it is first issued. The ruling in the case—the latest in a series of challenges to administrative power—could amplify the effect of the blockbuster decision overturning a foundational legal precedent known as Chevron deference, which required federal courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable inter

The Supreme Court avoided a definitive resolution of challenges to laws in Florida and Texas that curb the power of social media companies to moderate content, leaving in limbo an effort by Republicans who have promoted such legislation to remedy what they say is a bias against conservatives. Instead, the justices unanimously agreed to return the cases to lower courts for analysis. The laws were prompted in part by the decisions of some platforms to bar President Donald J. Trump after the Jan.