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.
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.
SaurikIT, whose appeal of a district court’s dismissal of an antitrust suit vs. Apple was rejected by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month, filed a petition Thursday (docket 22-16527) for rehearing and rehearing en banc.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared receptive to industry arguments that the court should overturn, or at least narrow, the Chevron doctrine, which gives agencies like the FCC and FTC deference in interpreting laws that Congress passes. The court heard oral argument Wednesday for more than 3.5 hours in two cases challenging Chevron deference, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Commerce. Both concern fishing regulations and don’t touch directly on communications regulation.
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.
Four Democratic senators support keeping Chevron against the “decades-long effort by pro-corporate interests to eviscerate the federal government’s regulatory apparatus to the detriment of the American people,” said their U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief Thursday (docket 22-451) in support of the government respondents in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (see 2309170001). “The call here to overturn Chevron and dismantle agency powers is a special interest solution in search of a problem,” said Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Dianne Feinstein of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.