Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Senate Communications Subcommittee members from both parties targeted FCC and NTIA implementation of connectivity programs created in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and COVID-19 aid measures Tuesday, as expected (see 2212120064), including concerns about deficient data the commission used to develop its new broadband maps. Lawmakers also touched on other telecom policymaking matters they hope Capitol Hill can address during the lame-duck session or in the next Congress. Senate Commerce Committee leaders saw a potential one-week extension of their talks on one lame-duck priority, a compromise spectrum legislative package (see 2212070068), appear via a proposed continuing resolution to fund the federal government past Friday.
Consumers' Research's petition for review of the FCC's Q4 2021 USF contribution factor is untimely and its claims "lack merit," the commission told the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a brief posted Tuesday in case 21-3886. The commission's authority to delegate the Universal Service Administrative Co. with calculating the quarterly factor is "clearly constitutional" because USAC is "subordinate to the commission and assists only in performing the accounting, billing, disbursement, and related functions necessary to operate the program," it said. The FCC asked the court to "not reward petitioners’ disregard for Congress’s comprehensive framework for judicial review of FCC orders by entertaining this petition on the merits." A coalition of industry groups filed a joint brief in support of the FCC and asked the court to reject Consumers' Research's claim that the contributions are taxes rather than fees. Petitioners "exaggerate every aspect of this case" and USAC’s role in determining the quarterly factors, said USTelecom, NTCA, and the Competitive Carriers Association in a joint brief: "The FCC’s regulations demonstrate that USAC exercises no lawmaking authority." The Schools, Health, & Libraries Broadband Coalition, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, National Digital Inclusion Alliance and Media Justice also asked the court to reject Consumers' Research's challenge, said the intervenors. "Petitioners cannot circumvent their timeliness problem through a manufactured challenge to this ministerial public notice," the groups said, citing the FCC's quarterly notice announcing each factor. Consumers' Research is seeking "untimely review of the constitutionality of the entire Universal Service Fund," the groups said, echoing arguments made by the industry coalition. The 5th Circuit held oral argument earlier this month on the group's challenge of the Q1 2022 contribution factor (see 2212060070).
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
A three-judge panel on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans questioned the procedure of Consumers’ Research’s challenge of the FCC’s method for funding the Universal Service Fund under the nondelegation doctrine, during oral argument Monday. Judges also pressed the FCC on whether Congress should be tasked with setting specific funding limitations and how the FCC reviews the quarterly contribution factor calculations made by the Universal Service Administrative Co.
Consumers’ Research's challenges to several of the FCC’s Universal Service Fund contribution factors may be an attempt to force a decision by the Supreme Court on the nondelegation doctrine, said academics and attorneys in interviews. Some said the group brought the exact same argument in multiple courts of appeals to forum shop and engineer a circuit split.
A Consumers' Research brief is due Dec. 27 at the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in its Oct. 6 petition for review of the FCC's USF 2022 Q4 contribution factor on grounds that it's illegal and should be rejected, said a memorandum Thursday (docket 22-13315). The petition argued that the contribution factor exceeds the commission's statutory authority under the delegation doctrine and is considered a tax. Consumers' Research filed multiple objections with the FCC on its proposed quarterly contribution factors and previously filed petitions for review before the 5th and 6th U.S. Circuit courts on behalf of itself and several individuals.
The FCC’s respondent brief in Consumers’ Research’s 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals challenge of the USF rules (see 2110050056) is due Dec. 5, said an order Friday in docket 21-3886. An optional reply from Consumers’ Research is due 21 days later, said the order. Consumer’s Research also has a similar ongoing case in the 5th Circuit.
A Consumers' Research brief is due Dec. 27 at the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in its Oct. 6 petition for review of the FCC's USF 2022 Q4 contribution factor on grounds that it's illegal and should be rejected, said a memorandum Thursday (docket 22-13315). The petition argued that the contribution factor exceeds the commission's statutory authority under the delegation doctrine and is considered a tax. Consumers' Research filed multiple objections with the FCC on its proposed quarterly contribution factors and previously filed petitions for review before the 5th and 6th U.S. Circuit courts on behalf of itself and several individuals.
USTelecom, NTCA and the Competitive Carriers Association defended a directive in Section 254 of the Telecom Act that the FCC preserve and advance universal service, in a pleading Friday in response to a challenge by Consumers’ Research to the broader USF program (see 2110050056). “Under the Supreme Court’s approach for reviewing nondelegation challenges, Section 254 falls well within constitutional bounds,” the groups told the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: “Section 254 prescribes far more detailed directions than other statutes that have repeatedly been upheld by the Supreme Court over the past century. Even under a more searching standard -- which could be adopted only by the Supreme Court -- Section 254 still would pass constitutional muster.”