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 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.
The net neutrality draft order on the FCC's April 25 open meeting agenda (see 2404030043) will face much the same legal arguments as the 2015 net neutrality order did, with many of the same parties involved, we're told by legal experts and net neutrality watchers.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act “protects Americans’ right to privacy,” and the district court’s Nov. 6 opinion dismissing plaintiff Jacob Howard’s complaint against the Republican National Committee (see 2311150003), “must be reversed, so that it continues” to protect that right, said Howard’s opening brief Wednesday (docket 23-3826) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Following last week’s oral argument in two Chevron cases before the U.S. Supreme Court (see 2401170074), the future of the doctrine appears in doubt.
Communications Litigation Today is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2023. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.
The Republican National Committee’s Aug. 24 motion to dismiss plaintiff Jacob Howard’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action (see 2308250005) “addresses an imaginary complaint” and should be denied, said Howard’s opposition Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-00993) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix.
DOJ and the FCC on Monday defended the commission’s order last year further clamping down on gear from Chinese companies, preventing the sale of yet-to-be authorized equipment in the U.S. (see 2211230065). Dahua USA and Hikvision USA challenged the order, which implements the 2021 Secure Equipment Act, questioning whether the FCC exceeded its legal authority (docket 23-1032). The case is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Oral argument isn't scheduled.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision last week in the student loan case, Biden v. Nebraska, didn’t touch on communications law, but it delves deeper into the "major questions doctrine" laid out a year ago in West Virginia v. EPA (see 2206300066). Legal experts told us the opinion, by Chief Justice John Roberts, appears to further expand when the doctrine may apply and moves the court further away from the Chevron doctrine. The case also has implications for the most controversial items addressed by the FCC, including net neutrality, experts said.
An upcoming Supreme Court decision in Biden v. Nebraska, which concerns the White House’s student loan forgiveness program, could clarify to what degree the court’s major questions doctrine (see 2302080064) could be used to challenge the actions of federal agencies such as the FCC, said HWG's Chris Wright and FCC Deputy General Counsel Jacob Lewis Thursday on a virtual FCBA panel.