FCC, DOJ Say ICS Case Should Proceed, But Challengers Urge Holding It in Abeyance

local government officials challenging the FCC orders said it should be. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit asked litigants to show cause by Tuesday why its review shouldn't be delayed "in light of the impending changes to the Commission" (see 1701110073). "The Court should allow these cases -- which are fully briefed and ready for argument -- to proceed on the current schedule," said an FCC/DOJ response (in Pacer) in Global Tel-Link v. FCC, No. 15-1461, which is scheduled for oral argument Feb. 6. "Particularly given how long inmates and their families have awaited relief from the exorbitant rates they pay for inmate calls, and given the considerable resources all parties have already invested in this litigation, the Court should not place these cases in abeyance based on a possibility that a newly constituted Commission might adopt different policies." Others disagreed. "It makes perfect sense to give the Commission a reasonable period of time -- as explained below, we propose 60 days -- to inform the Court as to whether it intends to revisit the confusing array of orders issued by the prior Commission," said a Global Tel*Link and CenturyLink response (in Pacer). "Republican commissioners will hold a 2-1 majority on the Commission. Both of the Republican commissioners issued vigorous dissents from the Commissions prior rulings. It is therefore appropriate for the Court to give the new Commission an opportunity to take a position on the issues implicated by the petitions for review before the Court devotes further resources to this case." Pay Tel Communications, Securus, Telmate and NARUC and state and local government officials also filed responses (here, here, here and here, all in Pacer) that backed holding the case in abeyance. But a Network Communications International response (in Pacer) said the case shouldn't be held in abeyance.