The incoming Republican administration and Congress will likely work at rolling back many of the current FCC’s policies through a combination of agency action, court decisions and the Congressional Review Act (CRA), attorneys and analysts told us in interviews. The CRA's threat also will likely limit the current FCC's agenda, they said. “The CRA is kind of looming over anything the FCC wants to try to do before the administration switches over,” said Jeffrey Westling, American Action Forum director-technology and innovation.
The group behind recent FCC complaints against CBS and ABC over their news coverage filed an equal time complaint against NBC and its station WNBC New York Monday over Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris’ weekend appearance on Saturday Night Live (see 2411040057). The complaint from the Center for American Rights echoes points first raised by FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr and calls for “a substantial fine” against NBC. “Broadcasters cannot abuse their licenses by airing what amounts to a free commercial promoting one candidate the weekend before the presidential election,” said CAR President Daniel Suhr in a news release. FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington backed the complaint Monday, saying “I urge Commission leadership to take these credible allegations seriously,” but multiple broadcast attorneys told us NBC appears to have satisfied the FCC’s rules.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari earlier this month in a case from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson, could have implications beyond the FCC’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, legal experts told us. SCOTUS began its current term Oct. 7.
The FCC released its order approving 3-2 radio broadcaster Audacy’s request for a temporary waiver of its foreign-ownership requirements. The dissents from both FCC Republicans condemn the order as a deviation from normal FCC procedure, but neither mentions by name the involvement of the Soros family in the deal, though that has been the main focus of Republican lawmakers and conservative media critical of the restructuring. Commissioner Brendan Carr previously called the waiver a “Soros shortcut.” To suggest that Audacy is receiving special treatment is “cynical and wrong,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, pointing to numerous similar grants from the FCC going back to 2018. “Our practice here and in these prior cases is designed to facilitate the prompt and orderly emergence from bankruptcy of a company that is a licensee under the Communications Act.”
After senators sent letters to all five FCC commissioners Friday calling for the agency to avoid “weaponization” of its licensing authority against broadcasters, Commissioner Nathan Simington responded, saying the FCC should renew the license of Fox station WTXF-TV Philadelphia over the opposition of public interest group the Media and Democracy Project (MAD). Letters from Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., referenced recent comments from Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump against ABC (see 2409120056).
In a dissent attached to a combined $3.6 million forfeiture against Sinclair Broadcast and others over kidvid violations, FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington has vowed he will dissent from monetary forfeitures until the agency “formally determines the bounds of its enforcement authority.” Simington's move comes in the wake of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision SEC v. Jarkesy. The order was approved 3-2, with Commissioner Brendan Carr also dissenting. The forfeiture order was adopted Aug.14, but not released until Thursday. The FCC didn't immediately comment on the delay. “I call on the Commission to open a Notice of Inquiry to determine the new constitutional contours of Commission enforcement authority,” Simington wrote. “The statutory structure governing the FCC’s forfeiture power is quite different from that of the SEC,” the FCC said in a footnote in the order, arguing that the agency’s enforcement actions don’t violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial as SCOTUS ruled the SEC’s do.
The ultimate makeup of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that hears the review of the FCC’s net neutrality order may not make much difference, some legal experts told us, in the wake of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. They doubted that the panel (docket 24-7000) will delve deeply into case law, instead simply deciding that going forward it's Congress, not the FCC, that must address any case that raises "major questions." Oral argument is scheduled for Oct. 31.
Maurine and Matthew Molak filed a petition Thursday seeking review of a July FCC order that lets schools and libraries use E-rate support for off-premises Wi-Fi hot spots and wireless internet services (see 2407180024), in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Molaks previously sought reconsideration of the July order, which three public interest groups and T-Mobile opposed last week (see 2408280029).
The objective of Consumers' Research was getting a case about the Universal Service Fund contribution methodology before the U.S. Supreme Court. That case resulted in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' recent 9-7 en banc decision that found the contribution factor is a "misbegotten tax," legal experts said during a Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition webinar Wednesday. The 5th Circuit remanded the contribution factor for Q1 2022 to the FCC for further work.
FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel vowed she will continue fighting for the commission's net neutrality order following the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that stayed the rules Thursday (see 2408010065). "The American public wants an internet that is fast, open and fair," and Thursday's decision "is a setback, but we will not give up the fight for net neutrality," Rosenworcel said.