In an investors' note Monday, New Street’s Blair Levin discussed reasons why the U.S. Supreme Court may overturn the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 9-7 en banc decision, which found the USF contribution factor is a "misbegotten tax.” Consumers' Research, a conservative group, challenged the contribution factor in the 5th Circuit and other courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted the FCC's cert petition challenging the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in favor of Consumers' Research's challenge of the USF contribution methodology (see 2410010024). In a docket 24-254 notation Friday, SCOTUS said that along with the questions raised in the petitions, it wanted the parties to brief and argue about whether the case is moot given the challengers' not seeking preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit. NTCA, Competitive Carriers Association and USTelecom in a statement said they were "grateful" SCOTUS was taking up the petition. "The Fifth Circuit’s decision is contrary to Supreme Court precedent and the decision of several other circuit courts of appeals, and it threatens to undermine universal service programs that, for many decades, have served to promote the availability and affordability of critical communications services for millions of rural and low-income consumers, rural health care facilities, and schools and libraries across the nation," they said. "We look forward to presenting arguments in defense of the USF contribution mechanism as the case moves forward, and ultimately to dispelling the uncertainty that these challenges have created in furthering our nation’s mission of universal service.” Also applauding the high court's move, the Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition said the 5th Circuit decision "has no precedent in prior Supreme Court jurisprudence." It said it's "further encouraged by the Supreme Court's request that parties brief the question whether the Consumers' Research challenge is moot."
John Windhausen, executive director of the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, said Wednesday his organization is willing to work with FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr and other Republicans to save a program that lets schools and libraries use E-rate support for off-premises Wi-Fi hot spots and wireless internet services. On tap to lead the FCC next year under President-elect Donald Trump, Carr voted against the E-rate program's creation, as did fellow Republican Nathan Simington (see 2410070028).
ANAHEIM, Calif. -- The NARUC Telecom Committee on Monday cleared draft resolutions on phone number conservation, the Universal Service Fund and utility coordination on broadband deployment. A USF panel that day described how reform could happen with Republicans controlling the FCC and Congress next year. Also, the affordable connectivity program (ACP) could return in 2025 despite Washington’s partisan climate, said Sanford Williams, deputy chief of staff for FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, during a collocated National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) meeting. State utility regulators are holding their annual meeting here this week.
A panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court on Monday gave little indication how it would rule as its three judges heard arguments on overturning the agency's Oct. 25 declaratory ruling authorizing E-rate funding for Wi-Fi on school buses (see 2312200040). Maurine and Matthew Molak of Texas brought the case, arguing that the ruling went beyond the commission’s authority to act under the Communications Act.
The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) backed the FCC's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari regarding the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on the Universal Service Fund contribution mechanism. SIIA said in an amicus brief Wednesday (No. 24-354) that it's "incumbent upon the Court to tread lightly, and to fully account for the consequences, before disrupting that massively important (and enormously beneficial) status quo" (see 2410180007). The group cited the USF-funded E-rate program's importance, saying a "downstream consequence" of affirming or declining to review the decision would include a "sharp reduction in funding" and "exacerbate the very inequities that the Universal Service Fund in general ... was meant to redress."
NARUC Telecom Committee Chair Tim Schram seeks better coordination and greater cost sharing related to digging amid an influx of government funding for broadband deployment, the Nebraska Republican said in an interview. NARUC circulated draft resolutions Tuesday for the state utility regulator association’s Nov. 10-13 meeting in Anaheim. In addition to a Schram proposal about coordination, the Telecom Committee plans to weigh drafts on optimizing phone number resources and defending the constitutionality of the federal universal service fund (USF) surcharge mechanism.
More than a dozen states told the U.S. Supreme Court that they were "right to be worried" about the FCC's Universal Service Fund's contribution mechanism in an amicus curiae filed Wednesday (No. 24-254). The states -- West Virginia, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia -- agreed with the en banc 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals' decision that the fund’s "problematic blend of standardless decision-making and missing executive oversight violates Article I of the Constitution" (see 2410010024). The Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, NTCA, USTelecom, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, National Digital Inclusion Alliance and MediaJustice also wrote SCOTUS in a separate letter maintaining their interest in the outcome of the case as intervenors. The groups said they have interests that are "distinct from those of the government."
The FCC and a coalition of industry and consumer groups urged the U.S. Supreme Court to grant their pending petitions for a writ of certiorari regarding the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in Consumers' Research's challenge of the Universal Service Fund contribution mechanism (No. 24-354). The FCC, in a reply brief Thursday, said the two pending petitions are "better vehicles for clarifying the law in this sphere" than Consumers' Research's petition of the 6th and 11th circuits' rulings (see 2410010024). The 5th Circuit addressed whether Congress delegated legislative power to the FCC, whether the agency delegated governmental power to a private entity, and whether the combination of the two violates the Constitution. The 6th and 11th circuits "did not specifically discuss whether the combination of the two alleged delegations violates the Constitution, and the petitions seeking review of those circuits’ decisions do not raise that question," the FCC said. The 5th Circuit is the only court to have found a nondelegation violation, the commission noted. "Granting certiorari in this case would allow the Court to directly review the 5th Circuit's reasoning," the FCC said. The agency also noted that SCOTUS has already denied petitions seeking review of the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions. Consumers' Research said in a reply brief to the coalition petition that there wasn't a reason to grant it "as their interests are adequately represented by the government" (No. 24-422). NTCA, the Competitive Carriers Association, USTelecom, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, and Media Justice petitioned SCOTUS to review the 5th Circuit ruling. Consumers' Research noted the coalition didn't seek to intervene in subsequent challenges it filed since that ruling, "apparently confirming their interests are adequately represented by the government."
Universal service "has been an essential component" of federal telecom policy since the FCC's creation, the agency argued in a petition for writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. Filed Monday (docket 24-354), the FCC's petition said the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in favor of Consumers' Research's challenge of the Universal Service Fund contribution methodology was "incorrect." Moreover, the agency said it "did not delegate governmental power" when it designated the Universal Service Administrative Co. as USF administrator (see 2407240043).