Supreme Court turns aside conservative challenge to $8 billion phone and internet subsidy program
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 27 upheld an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans, rejecting a conservative argument that the program is funded by an unconstitutional tax.
The case raised questions about how much Congress can 'delegate' its legislative authority to a federal agency and whether the Supreme Court should tighten that standard.
Under a law Congress passed in 1996, telecommunications companies are charged a Universal Service Fund fee – passed on to customers − that boosts phone and internet service to households and hospitals in rural areas, to low-income families, and to public schools and libraries.
A private administrator overseen by the Federal Communications Commission distributes the funding, collects the fees and estimates how much needs to be raised each quarter. The FCC must approve the estimate before it's used to determine fees for each carrier.
The conservative group Consumers' Research, a carrier and a group of consumers challenged this setup, which has been the law for nearly three decades, asserting it's Congress, not the FCC – and certainly not a private entity − that must determine the fee level.
"At its heart, this case is about taxation without representation," Trent McCotter, an attorney for the group, told the Supreme Court in March. 'The amount of public revenue to raise is a quintessential legislative determination, not some minor detail to be filled in later.'
While appeals courts in Ohio and Georgia rejected those arguments, the Louisiana-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the universal service fee unconstitutional.
The challenge was part of a conservative effort to curb the 'administrative state' that has often been successful at the high court.
But Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general under former President George W. Bush − a Republican − represented a trade association for the telecommunications industry defending the program. He told the justices this was not the right case to revamp Supreme Court decisions that had set a low bar for the non-delegation rule.
'We all benefit from having a communications system that is truly universal,' Clement said. 'I may not live in rural Alaska, but it's nice to be able to place a call there.'
And the Justice Department warned that declaring the funding scheme unconstitutional would jeopardize many other programs.
The telecommunications law, according to the department, follows the same delegation framework Congress has used in a range of areas, including to prevent unfair competition, oversee the securities industry, ensure the safety of food and drugs, regulate labor relations and set air-quality standards.
The lead case of the two that were consolidated for arguments is Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
40 minutes ago
- Politico
Justices' nerves fray in Supreme Court's final stretch
The Supreme Court's nine justices often like to tout their camaraderie, hoping to dispel public perceptions that they are locked into warring ideological camps. But the final rulings of the current term — issued from the bench during a tense 90-minute court session Friday — revealed some acrimonious, even acidic, exchanges. Most of the rhetorical clashes pitted the court's conservative and liberal wings against each other in politically polarized cases. But not all of the spats fell squarely along ideological lines. On the whole, they paint a picture of nine people who are deeply divided over the law and the role of the courts — and who also may just not like each other very much. The most acerbic feud Friday came in the biggest ruling of the year: the justices' 6-3 decision granting the Trump administration's bid to rein in the power of individual district court judges to block federal government policies nationwide. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court's entire conservative supermajority, responded sharply to a pair of dissents, one written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the other written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. But Barrett reserved her most pointed barbs for Jackson. Barrett, a Trump appointee and the second-most-junior justice, accused Jackson, a Biden appointee and the court's most junior member, of mounting 'a startling line of attack' not 'tethered … to any doctrine whatsoever.' According to Barrett, Jackson was promoting 'a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,' and she was skipping over legal issues she considers 'boring.' 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' wrote Barrett. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Well, maybe not 'only' that. While insisting she wouldn't 'dwell' on Jackson's arguments, Barrett wound up devoting nearly 900 words to them, capping the passage off with another zinger suggesting hypocrisy on Jackson's part. 'Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: 'Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,'' Barrett wrote. 'That goes for judges too.' For her part, Jackson accused Barrett and the other conservatives of an obsession with 'impotent English tribunals' and of blessing a 'zone of lawlessness.' 'What the majority has done is allow the Executive to nullify the statutory and constitutional rights of the uncounseled, the underresourced, and the unwary, by prohibiting the lower courts from ordering the Executive to follow the law across the board,' Jackson declared. Although 42 percent of the court's opinions this term were unanimous, this week's decisions continued the pattern of liberals often finding themselves on the losing end of 6-3 rulings in the hardest-fought and most impactful cases. So, perhaps it's no surprise that the liberal justices are the ones to often paint the court's decisions in grave, even apocalyptic, terms. The court's 6-3 decision that public-school parents must be allowed to pull their children out of lessons involving LGBTQ-themed books produced a fiery dissent from Sotomayor. She predicted a 'nightmare' for school as parents choose to pull their kids out of lessons they disapprove of on topics ranging from evolution to the role of women in society to vaccines. The ensuing 'chaos' and self-censorship by schools threatens to end American public education as we know it, she said. 'Today's ruling threatens the very essence of public education,' Sotomayor wrote. 'The reverberations of the Court's error will be felt, I fear, for generations.' While the liberal justices more often found themselves on the losing side than the conservatives, some members of the court's right flank also found occasion to voice grave concerns about select rulings. Consider a decision issued Friday involving an FCC fund that supports broadband access in rural areas. It's not exactly a hot culture-war issue. And a mixed coalition of three conservatives and three liberals joined together to uphold the fund. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, animated by the case's implications for the balance of power between Congress and federal agencies, filed a lengthy dissent that accused the majority of embarking on a judicial 'misadventure' and deploying 'ludicrously hypothetical' reasoning. The majority, he wrote, 'defies the Constitution's command' that power be divided among the branches. A day earlier, Gorsuch had exchanged sharp words with Jackson — but this time, he was in the majority. Jackson, in an opinion joined by the court's other two liberals, suggested the conservative majority's decision allowing South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program there amounted to a continuation of the long campaign by racists and segregationists in the South to resist federal civil rights laws enacted in the wake of the Civil War. 'A century and a half later, the project of stymying one of the country's great civil rights laws continues,' Jackson wrote. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, dismissed the inflammatory claim out of hand, calling it 'extravagant.' Jackson has also used stark language in dissents from rulings on the court's emergency docket. In April, she predicted 'devastation' from the Trump administration suspension of education grants and called the court's decision to allow the cuts to proceed 'in equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate.' One of the major surprises Friday was the court's decision to pass up issuing any opinion in the term's big redistricting case. It involved the Louisiana legislature's creation of a second majority-Black congressional district after courts ordered the legislature to do so to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Although the justices heard the case in March, they ordered that the case be reargued, likely this fall. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing alone, scolded his colleagues for copping out despite a full round of legal briefing and 80 minutes of oral arguments on the issue. 'The Court today punts without explanation,' Thomas complained. The way to resolve the Louisiana case 'should be straightforward,' the court's longest-serving justice said. Then he stepped up his rhetoric another notch, declaring that the court had not only failed to explain its action but that it defied any logic whatsoever. 'The Court … inexplicably schedules these cases for reargument,' Thomas griped. The consternation displayed by the justices this week came as one of their former colleagues, retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, issued an impassioned warning that 'hostile, fractious discourse' was tearing at the fabric of American democracy. To be sure, there are no outward signs the acrimony at the high court has reached the levels it did in 2022, following POLITICO's publication of a draft of the court's not-yet-released opinion overturning the federal constitutional right to an abortion. Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said then that trust at the court was 'gone forever.' And after that bombshell ruling was officially published, Justice Elena Kagan accused the court of making political decisions. The Obama appointee said only 'time will tell' if the justices could again find 'common ground.' While the justices' disagreement in the major cases often seemed stark this week, there were occasional efforts to bridge the divide. Playing a role he often adopts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed eager to downplay the practical significance of the court's ruling barring nationwide injunctions in most instances. Kavanaugh said the district court injunctions at issue are rarely 'the last word' in high-profile fights over executive power. Those battles ultimately end up at the Supreme Court, he argued, so whether a district court's injunction is enforced nationwide or not matters less than what the justices decide on the slew of emergency applications landing on their so-called shadow docket. 'When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass,' wrote Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee. During speaking appearances last month, Chief Justice John Roberts insisted the justices aren't at each other's throats, despite the tone of some of the opinions that come out as the court winds down its work for the term. 'I'm sure people listening to the news or reading our decisions, particularly decisions that come out in May and June, maybe think, 'Boy, those people really must hate each other. They must be at hammer and tong the whole time,'' the chief justice told an audience in Buffalo. However, Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, also said the court's summer recess is a welcome respite not only from work, but from colleagues. 'That break is critical to maintaining a level of balance,' he said. Roberts, who traditionally teaches a legal course overseas during the summer and lounges at his vacation home in Maine, has one more official gig before he heads out. He's scheduled to speak Saturday morning to a judicial conference in North Carolina, where he'll have a chance to offer his latest thoughts on whether his colleagues are grating on each other or getting along.
The Hill
40 minutes ago
- The Hill
House Democrats not convinced Iran nuclear capabilities wiped
The Big Story A House briefing from Trump administration officials on last weekend's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites has done little to mollify the concerns of Democrats, who say they were presented little evidence that the attacks will prevent Tehran from producing nuclear weapons. © Greg Nash Skeptical Democrats had gone into the briefing with two pressing questions: Did Iran pose an imminent threat to Americans, thereby justifying President Trump's move to launch the strikes without congressional approval? And did the attacks 'obliterate' Iran's capacity to make nuclear weapons, as Trump has claimed? Leaving the closed-door gathering, Democrats said they got satisfactory answers to neither question. 'I would say that that particular briefing left me with more concerns and a true lack of clarity on how we are defining the mission and the success of it,' said Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the Democratic whip. Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), a former nuclear physicist, said the U.S. strikes likely knocked out Iran's centrifuges and other infrastructure required to enrich uranium in the future. But there's no evidence, he said, that the attacks destroyed Iran's existing stockpiles of enriched uranium. If those are intact, he warned, Iran could still produce weapons with the strength of a Hiroshima bomb in 'a very small breakout time.' 'The goal of this mission, from the start, was to secure or destroy that material,' he said. 'That's where they're hiding the ball. And that's what we have to keep our eyes on.' Friday's House briefing came six days after Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to dismantle Tehran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. The briefing was conducted by top administration officials — including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — who had also briefed Senate lawmakers a day earlier. Trump has repeatedly said the mission was an unqualified success, 'obliterating' Iran's nuclear capacity and setting the program back by years. And the president's GOP allies in the Capitol echoed that message after the briefing. 'It is clear, everyone can see by the videos, that these massive ordinance penetrating bombs did the job,' Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said. 'I think their key facilities have been disabled, and I think Iran is now a long time away from doing what they might have done before this very successful operation.' A preliminary report from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reached different conclusions, finding that the strikes set back Iran's nuclear program by months, rather than years. More recent statements from the CIA and Trump's head of national intelligence have disputed the DIA report, creating mixed messages from the administration about the success of the mission. Read the full report at Welcome to The Hill's Defense & National Security newsletter, I'm Ellen Mitchell — your guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will affect defense and national security now and inthe future: Iran's foreign minister: Israel had to run to 'daddy' Iran 'showed the world that the Israeli regime had NO Choice but to RUN to 'Daddy' to avoid being flattened out by our missiles,' wrote Seyeb Abbas Araghchi, Iran's Foreign Minister, on X. This comes amid a back and forth between Iran and the U.S. after the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei spoke for the first time since the U.S. strikes. 'My congratulations on our dear Iran's victory over the US regime,' … Senate blocks Iran war powers resolution The Senate blocked an effort Friday to prevent President Trump from taking future military action against Iran without authorization from Congress, less than a week after he directed strikes aimed at the country's nuclear capabilities. Senators voted 47-53 largely along party lines against the war powers resolution. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was the lone GOP lawmaker to vote with Democrats. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), … Schiff: 'Too many unknowns' to claim 'victory' in stopping Iran nuclear weapons Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Friday it's 'premature' for anyone to be claiming that Iran will not try to continue its nuclear program. 'The Iranian regime had not made a decision to build a bomb, was not pursuing the mechanism of a bomb, even though it was enriching uranium,' he said in Friday comments on ABC News Live. Over the past week, there has been heavy debate over whether the U.S. strikes in Iran on June 21 … McConnell: Trump has 'some pretty rabid isolationists over at' DOD Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took a swipe at President Trump's national security team in a rare interview as part of a recent pattern of public comments urging the president to consider military intervention in Iran and elsewhere more favorably. 'He's got some pretty rabid isolationists over at [the Department of Defense] — you could argue the vice president is in that group,' the former Senate Republican leader told Politico. … On Our Radar Upcoming things we're watching on our beat: In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: Senators diverge sharply on damage done by Iran strikes after classified briefing WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators emerged from a classified briefing Thursday with sharply diverging assessments of President Donald Trump's bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites, with Republicans calling the mission a clear success and Democrats expressing deep skepticism. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, … On Tap Monday Events in and around the defense world: What We're Reading News we've flagged from other outlets: Trending Today Two key stories on The Hill right now: GOP leader sets Saturday vote on Trump 'big, beautiful bill' despite Republican pushback Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told Senate Republicans to expect to see the legislative text of the budget reconciliation package on Friday … Read more Trump approval underwater, voters say US is on wrong track: Poll President Trump's approval rating is underwater and a majority of voters believe the country is on the wrong track, according to a poll released Friday. … Read more Opinions in The Hill Op-eds related to defense & national security submitted to The Hill: Check out The Hill's Defense page for the latest coverage. You're all caught up. See you next time! Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
New York Post
44 minutes ago
- New York Post
Birthright citizenship remains law of the land — for now — despite SCOTUS ruling
Birthright citizenship remains a fact of life in the US — for now — following the Supreme Court's ruling Friday limiting judges' ability to issue universal injunctions halting executive action. Moments after the 6-3 ruling, the Trump administration announced plans to move forward with the president's Day One executive order redefining the 14th Amendment's promise that '[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, and some of the cases we're talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes to the fore,' President Trump said during a rare appearance in the White House briefing room. Advertisement The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling did not judge the birthright citizenship question on its merits. Eric Kayne/ZUMA / 'That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation.' 'Yes, birthright citizenship will be decided in October in the next session by the Supreme Court,' Attorney General Pam Bondi affirmed moments later, even though the high court has yet to finalize its argument schedule and no cases related to the executive order have been picked for review by the justices. Advertisement In an opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court ruled that the practice of a single district judge issuing a nationwide ruling 'likely exceed' the authority laid out by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Notably, the court did not decide whether Trump's actual order was constitutional. 'If there's a birthright citizenship case in Oregon, it will only affect the plaintiff in Oregon, not the entire country,' was how Bondi explained the ruling. Trump's order would limit US citizenship to children who have at least one parent who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. Advertisement The action was enjoined three days after Trump signed it by a Seattle federal judge, who called the move 'blatantly unconstitutional.' President Trump said the administration now can go forward with 'numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' On Friday afternoon, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a fresh class-action lawsuit challenging the birthright citizenship order, a legal maneuver which must meet certain requirements before getting a hearing. 'This new case seeks protection for all families in the country, filling the gaps that may be left by the existing litigation,' the organization said in a press release. Advertisement The 22 Democrat-led states that challenged Trump's order also expressed confidence that it would never be enforced. 'We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land,' said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, 'and of course birthright citizenship as well.' Locally, a City Hall spokesperson confirmed to The Post that Friday's Supreme Court ruling has no effect on New York City at this time. With Post wires
