Trent McCotter, the lawyer for Consumers’ Research, faced tough questions during lengthy oral arguments Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court on the group’s challenge of the USF contribution factor and the USF in general. Sarah Harris, acting U.S. solicitor general, vigorously defended the USF on behalf of the government. Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy, a high-profile conservative appellate lawyer, represented industry defenders of the USF.

On the eve of a key U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the USF's future, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said questions remain about the program's survival. How USF is paid for has to change, Carr told a Free State Foundation conference Tuesday. He also said he supports President Donald Trump's dismissal of Democratic commissioners at the FTC.

Lawyers for the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition and the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society were cautiously optimistic Wednesday that their side would prevail at the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the FCC and the USF contribution factor in FCC v. Consumers’ Research. But they also expect a divided decision. SCOTUS is to consider the case March 26.

The government defended the FCC in a reply brief in FCC v. Consumers’ Research, the USF case before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Consumers' Research (CR) creates a “straw man” to attack. Public interest groups, led by the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, also defended the legality of how the USF contribution factor is calculated. SCOTUS is set to hear oral argument March 26.

The FCC Office of Managing Director announced Thursday a proposed Q2 USF contribution factor of 36.6%, as calculated by the Universal Service Administrative Co. That’s up from 36.3% the previous quarter and the highest quarterly contribution factor in the program's history. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear FCC v. Consumers’ Research March 26, a case about the contribution factor's legality.

ACA Connects CEO Grant Spellmeyer and two other communications industry executives set to appear at a House Communications Subcommittee hearing Wednesday urge lawmakers in written testimony to revamp the NTIA-administered, $42.5 billion BEAD program. Some also say they want quick congressional action on a potential U.S. Supreme Court overturn of USF’s funding mechanism. Sarah Morris, acting deputy NTIA administrator during the Biden administration, is also set to testify. Her written statement wasn’t available Tuesday afternoon. The panel will begin at 2 p.m. in 2123 Rayburn.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said Thursday that staffing changes are coming to the FCC and that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is likely headed to the agency. Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez warned about the Donald Trump administration’s continuing moves against the federal workforce. Commissioners agreed on three wireless items (see 2502270042) and Calm Act rules at the meeting, as well as taking additional steps on robocalls.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous but narrow opinion Friday that reimbursement requests submitted to the E-rate program, administered by the Universal Service Administrative Co., can be considered “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA). The decision in Wisconsin Bell v. U.S. reaffirmed the ruling of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Elena Kagan, one of three justices appointed by a Democratic president, wrote the opinion.

The National Federation of Independent Business’ Small Business Legal Center joined Consumers’ Research in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reject how the FCC handles USF. FCC v. Consumers' Research, which SCOTUS will hear March 26, challenges the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating how the USF program is funded (see 2501090045).

Consumers’ Research is getting support from other right-of-center groups as it pushes a legal theory at the U.S. Supreme Court that poses a challenge to the USF's future. SCOTUS will hear FCC v. Consumers' Research on March 26, challenging the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating how the USF program is funded (see 2501090045).