FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel showed no willingness Tuesday to abandon a March Further NPRM that would ban bulk billing arrangements between ISPs and multi-dwelling unit owners (see 2403050069) despite bipartisan criticism during a House Communications Subcommittee hearing. She was similarly unmoved by GOP skepticism about a proposal requiring disclosure of AI-generated content in political ads (see 2405220061). During the hearing, Republican Commissioner Brendan Carr called for the FCC to backtrack on both proposals because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision and other rulings (see 2407080039).
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that overruled the Chevron doctrine (see 2407010036) will likely heavily influence discussion during a House Communications Subcommittee hearing Tuesday on the commission’s FY 2025 funding request, congressional aides and lobbyists told us. Chevron gave the FCC and other federal agencies deference in interpreting federal laws. Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr is urging the commission ahead of the House hearing to drop a planned July 18 vote on a draft order and Further NPRM letting schools and libraries use E-rate support for off-premises Wi-Fi hot spots in response to the ruling. The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
An attorney for Rochester, New York, is examining the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned a four-decades-old standard on judicial deference to regulatory agency decisions (see 2406280043). In February, U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Wolford for Western New York in Rochester found in favor of Crown Castle, Extenet and Verizon on their consolidated claim that the city violated sections 253 and 332 of the Telecommunications Act in the unlawful manner in which it assessed fees for telecom deployments within its jurisdiction. “My office is presently reviewing the Loper Bright decision to determine its implications for the instant matters, particularly as to this Court’s summary judgment analysis,” city lawyer Patrick Beath's filing said: “Plaintiffs believe that Loper Bright has no impact here. I need additional time to make that assessment and confer with my client.”
Recent U. S. Supreme Court decisions on judicial deference to federal agencies and agency enforcement actions will have “significant impacts” on FCC matters, but “how they apply may vary significantly by context,” according to a Monday post from HWG attorneys Christopher Wright, Sean Lev and Jason Neal. Wright and Lev are former FCC general counsels. “Many FCC actions are based on statutory provisions that are at least arguably ambiguous, and litigants affected by those decisions will in some cases have a greater chance to prevail in federal court,” in light of the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision (see 2407010036), the attorneys said. However, many of the rules that Congress directed the FCC to implement use terms like “appropriate” or “reasonable," they noted. “The meaning of the Court’s reasoning regarding those instances where Congress clearly has authorized some amount of discretion will be important (and surely contested),” they said. While SCOTUS ruled previous decisions that relied on Chevron deference remain in effect, that's also likely to get tested in the courts, they wrote. In its decision in SEC v. Jarkesy (see 2406270063), the court didn’t specify what opportunities for a jury trial satisfy the Seventh Amendment. Although FCC enforcement proceedings haven’t generally involved juries, even before Jarkesy an entity facing an FCC forfeiture could decline to pay, and eventually face a civil suit from DOJ to collect the unpaid money, a proceeding called a “trial de novo.” The FCC has previously contended that this opportunity satisfies any 7th Amendment requirements, the attorneys said.
Industry lawyers continue to assess the potentially seismic implications of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the other Chevron case decided last week (see 2406280043). Yet the after-effects are being seen already. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday directed parties in the net neutrality challenge to file not later than July 8 supplemental briefing material addressing the effect of the Chevron decision “on our analysis” of a motion to stay the order (see 2406280060).
The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority surprised no one Friday, issuing a decision decided on ideological lines that overrules the Chevron doctrine. Chevron gave agencies like the FCC and FTC deference in interpreting laws that Congress approved. On the penultimate day of its term, the court released a decision that wraps together Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Commerce. Both cases concern fishing regulations but were used as a vehicle for overturning Chevron.
Selection of the 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court to hear industry challenges to the net neutrality order may bode well for industry. Still, many questions remain, including which judges will hear the case and whether arguments are ultimately held in the Ohio-based court, industry experts said Friday.
A coalition of industry groups on Friday challenged the FCC's net neutrality order and declaratory ruling reclassifying broadband as a Communications Act Title II telecom service (see 2405310074). The coalition asked the FCC to stay the effective date of its order and declaratory ruling pending judicial review. Coalition members included USTelecom, NCTA, CTIA, ACA Connects and several state broadband associations.
A coalition of industry groups on Friday challenged the FCC's net neutrality order and declaratory ruling reclassifying broadband as a Communications Act Title II telecom service.
The net neutrality draft order on the FCC's April 25 open meeting agenda (see 2404030043) will face much the same legal arguments as the 2015 net neutrality order did, with many of the same parties involved, we're told by legal experts and net neutrality watchers.