‘Deplorable': Democrats slam SCOTUS ruling in birthright citizenship case
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a multibillion-dollar fund used to expand telephone and broadband services.
The 6-3 ruling is a victory for the Federal Communications Commission, which operates the pot of money in question, known as the Universal Service Fund. It's also a rare win at the Supreme Court for agency power, as the court's conservative majority — which is often skeptical of independent agencies — passed up an opportunity to further weaken the administrative state.
Three liberal justices and three conservatives formed the court's majority. Three other conservatives dissented.
The money in the Universal Service Fund comes from charges collected from telephone providers through a surcharge on customers' bills. It is used for a mix of internet connectivity subsidy programs that help schools, libraries, low-income households and internet providers in rural areas.
In upholding the fund, the justices rejected a bid by some legal conservatives to weaken the administrative state by reviving a controversial theory known as the 'nondelegation doctrine.' Under that doctrine, Congress has extremely limited authority to delegate policymaking decisions to executive branch agencies.
'For nearly three decades, the work of Congress and the Commission in establishing universal-service programs has led to a more fully connected country. And it has done so while leaving fully intact the separation of powers integral to our Constitution,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion.
The three justices often considered the court's most conservative members, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented.
Writing for the dissenters, Gorsuch said the court effectively rewrote the law in order to deem it constitutional. 'We wind up in much the same place, only now with judges, rather than Presidents or bureaucrats, making our laws,' he wrote.
Proponents of the nondelegation doctrine argued that Congress handed away too much power when it instructed the FCC to determine how much money to collect for the Universal Service Fund. And, they say, the FCC in turn handed away too much power when the agency established a private corporation to help administer the fund. In essence, the challengers argued, the fund represents an unconstitutional tax.
If the Supreme Court had fully accepted those arguments and endorsed an aggressive view of nondelegation, experts say it would have imperiled numerous programs across federal agencies.
But the high court, in a 6-3 vote, said the FCC setup didn't violate the nondelegation doctrine.
'Consumers' Research contends that the Act gives the FCC boundless authority, but the provisions it points to show nothing of the kind,' Kagan wrote for the majority, referring to the conservative nonprofit group that brought the case. 'The test Consumers' Research proposes also would throw a host of federal statutes into doubt, as Congress has often empowered agencies to raise revenue without specifying a numeric cap or tax rate.'
The justices' ruling will be a relief for the many telecom players who felt threatened by the case. Supporters of the fund have long warned that a decision striking it down could put millions of beneficiaries at risk. The loss could have squeezed households particularly with lower incomes and in rural areas, where cutting off the aid could have driven up internet prices right as households lost a monthly subsidy helping them pay for it.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
39 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Senate Tax Bill Would Add $3.3 Trillion to US Deficits, CBO Says
The Senate version of President Donald Trump's tax and spending measure would add nearly $3.3 trillion to US deficits over a decade, according to a new estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO score for the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill reflects a $4.5 trillion decrease in revenues and a $1.2 trillion decrease in spending through 2034, relative to a current law baseline.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump said letters to trading partners going out ‘soon' to set tariff rate
President Trump said that letters to trading partners will be going out soon to establish tariff rates, ahead of the July 8 expiration on the pause on his hefty 'reciprocal' tariffs. 'Basically, and I'm for doing it right now, we send letters out to all of the countries explaining to them— we'll look at the deficit we have, or whatever it is with the country. We'll look at how a country treats us. Are they good? Are they not so good? Some countries, we don't care, we'll just send a high number out,' Trump said on Fox News 'Sunday Morning Futures' with Maria Bartiromo. 'But we're going to be sending letters out starting pretty soon,' he added. 'We're going to say, 'Congratulations, we are allowing you to shop in the United States of America. You're going to pay a 25 percent tariff, or a 35 percent or a 50 percent or a 10 percent.' The administration has been working on trade deals during the 90-day pause, with only agreements with China and the United Kingdom having been announced, despite the self-imposed ambitious goals of 90 deals in 90 days. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday that the July 8 deadline is 'not critical' and left the day open for it to be extended. Officials, though, have insisted for months that talks are progressing with trading partners like India, Japan and Vietnam but have not made any announcements. White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said Tuesday the administration is waiting to announce trade deals until after Trump's megabill passes Congress. Senate Republicans narrowly voted on Saturday to advance the bill to enact Trump's agenda.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Congress should look to Tennessee as an example for Medicaid reform
As Congress wrestles with the need to trim spending, attention has turned to Medicaid, and to a lesser extent, Medicare. These are hardly new issues. Within seven years of the 1965 enactment of Medicaid, for those eligible for federal income support (largely those in poverty), and Medicare, primarily for those eligible for Social Security, Congress in 1972 turned its attention to concerns about containing costs in those programs. Tennessee has been a pioneer in managing its Medicaid costs, and Congress might benefit from the Tennessee experience with TennCare, the state's Medicaid program. About 30 years ago, Tennessee faced unsustainable annual increases in its Medicaid program. A popular Democratic governor, Ned McWherter, called the state's Medicaid program the Pac Man of the state's budget. He sought to find a way to pay for the Medicaid increases through a state income tax (Tennessee does not have one) but failed. The TennCare program was designed to address the issue by containing the rate of increase in costs. Tennessee received a waiver so that it could implement a universal and mandatory managed care program. Tennessee had no managed care in Medicaid, and a move to 100 percent managed care was projected to reduce costs by 20-25 percent on a recurring basis. Support from patient advocates was secured by agreeing that cost savings would be used to increase access to Medicaid to previously uncovered persons. The mandatory Medicaid managed care program was deemed such a success that, in 1997, Congress allowed states to implement Medicaid managed care without a waiver. Managed care introduced economic considerations into the process of medical decision-making. While the cost savings projections were pretty much on target; once those savings were fully realized, the projections recognized that the rate of cost escalation would be restored, albeit from a lower cost basis. That projection also turned out to be pretty accurate. A Republican governor, Don Sundquist, succeeded McWherter and unsuccessfully sought to implement an income tax. Another wonderful Democratic governor, Phil Bredesen, was elected to succeed Sundquist under a promise not to seek an income tax. Bredesen was determined to find a way to manage down the rate of increase of Medicaid spending. I served as his outside counsel. A reform team determined that the target for reform should focus on the concept of 'medical necessity.' That insight was informed by work I had done as part of an Institute of Medicine study group, which looked at hospital staffing in a system that had recently merged three hospitals. There were three distinct models, and no consensus about which was the 'right' one. Traditionally, the concept of 'medical necessity' was the term used to define the scope of benefits under health plans, including Medicaid. The concept assumed that there was a single correct way of practicing medicine, and that it had a justification based on scientific consensus. But the existence of clinical uncertainty called into question that traditional view. As it turned out, many alternatives were available at varying costs, and evidence of superiority of one particular approach was often lacking. Those insights led to the policy conclusion that, if a more expensive alternative were proposed, the state should not pay for that more expensive alternative unless there was good scientific evidence that it was superior and worth the additional cost. If an aspirin were adequate, it should be used instead of a more expensive prescription-based alternative. If an adequate outpatient procedure were available at lower cost, TennCare should not pay for a more expensive inpatient option. These insights resulted in a TennCare definition of 'medical necessity' that could serve as a national model at considerable (but hard to measure) cost savings. That definition has been in place for nearly 20 years and has been approved by a federal court. TennCare has kept costs manageable so that the state has been able to live within existing sources of revenue, and the state even proposed to accept financial risk if it could share in the cost savings from TennCare above a projected baseline. The TennCare definition includes the traditional requirement that a medical item or service be recommended by a treating physician (no doctor shopping) and that it be 'safe and effective.' The reasonably anticipated medical benefits must 'outweigh' the reasonably anticipated medical risks 'based on the enrollee's condition and scientifically supported evidence' to be covered under TennCare. That is, a medically based risk-benefit calculation is a requirement as part of medical decision-making. The innovative aspects have three components. First, a medical item or service must be required 'in order to diagnose or treat an enrollee's medical condition.' That circumscribes the type of item or service covered under the program. Second, the medical item or service must be the 'least costly alternative course of diagnosis or treatment.' That expressly incorporates economic factors into medical decision-making. An alternative course of diagnosis or treatment 'may include observation, lifestyle or behavioral changes, or, where appropriate, no treatment at all.' If an item or service can be safely provided in an outpatient setting at lower cost, then that is what TennCare will pay for. More expensive inpatient treatment is not 'medically necessary.' Third, the less costly alternative need only be 'adequate for the medical condition of the enrollee.' The yardstick is not the best possible standard or some comparison with private plans. The standard of 'adequacy' means that sub-standard medicine is not acceptable, but that some differences between benefits for TennCare enrollees and those on private plans are acceptable. These innovations were controversial 20 years ago, when proposed and enacted, but they have become part of the fabric of TennCare and have been in place successfully for two decades. They help shape the medical decision-making culture that costs are to be considered and that the issue is the adequacy of care not what might be available in some private plans. That type of modest stratification, by the way, is expressly endorsed in the Affordable Care Act. Section 1302(b)(5) expressly allows for supplementation by health plans beyond the essential health benefits mandated by the Affordable Care Act. In the discussions that led to these reforms, the estimated range of savings was from 1 percent to 5 percent of total Medicaid spending. In an environment in which a program entails large expenditures, even a 1 percent per year savings could be considerable. James F. Blumstein is University Distinguished Professor at Vanderbilt Law School and the director of Vanderbilt's Health Policy Center.
