Supreme Court upholds phone and internet subsidy program for underserved areas
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to a Federal Communications Commission program that subsidizes phone and internet services in underserved parts of the country.
In a decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the court ruled that Congress did not exceed its authority when it enacted a 1996 law that set up the Universal Service Fund, which requires telecommunications services to submit payments to subsidize 'universal service.'
The court also said the FCC could delegate its authority to a private corporation called the Universal Service Administrative Company to administer the fund.
"Nothing in these arrangements, either separately or together, violates the Constitution," Kagan wrote.
The justices were divided 6-3, with three conservative justices dissenting.
The fees, generally passed on to customers, raise billions of dollars a year that are spent on providing phone and internet services, including for schools, libraries and hospitals.
Challengers said the program violates the 'nondelegation doctrine,' a theory embraced by conservatives that says Congress has limited powers to delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch.
Lower courts were divided over the issue, with both the FCC and a coalition led by Consumers' Research, a conservative group, asking the Supreme Court to weigh in.
Opponents call the Universal Service Fund fee a form of tax and say only elected officials, not bureaucrats, have the power to impose it.
The 1996 law is particularly problematic because it does not tell the FCC how much money it can raise via the program, the challengers' lawyers argued.
The court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has undercut the authority of government agencies in a series of recent decisions.
That had led some commentators to wonder if it would use the FCC case to turbocharge the nondelegation doctrine.
The current court has not yet embraced the nondelegation doctrine, although in different contexts, a majority of justices have indicated support for it. If the court did reinvigorate the idea, agencies would face new limits on their powers to implement existing laws and programs that seek to enforce open-ended laws enacted by Congress.
Although the Trump administration has sought to weaken federal agencies by firing thousands of workers, its lawyers defended the FCC in the case. The administration took over the case from the Biden administration, which had appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
President Donald Trump has tried to expand the powers of the presidency at the expense of Congress and the judiciary, so his administration's position in the case is consistent with that approach.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
3 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
I spent 31 years advising US on the Iran threat – it's the last gaps of a dying regime, Trump's next move is crucial
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) IRAN'S repressed nation should be encouraged to overthrow its barbaric regime by the US, an ex-Congress adviser said. Calls for regime overhaul in the rogue nation have rumbled louder since a 12-day war broke out between Israel and Iran erupted. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 7 Smoke and fire rise following missile attack from Iran on Israel, in Haifa Credit: Reuters 7 Ayatollah Ali Khamenei went into hiding as Israel and Iran traded blows Credit: EPA 7 A demonstrator holding an Israeli flag and a poster demanding regime change during a protest against the Iranian government outside the Federal Building in LA Credit: Reuters Donald Trump unleashed the biggest blow of the conflict last Sunday when he ordered America's military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. The US leader even hinted at toppling the regime as he wrote on Truth Social: "If the current Iranian regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a regime change? MIGA!". Authorities in the US insisted ousting the Ayatollah was not one of its goals - but question marks hang over whether his cruel regime can survive. Supreme leader Ali Khamenei has led a blood-soaked reign over Iran since 1989 following the death of his ruthless predecessor Ruhollah Khomeini. But the chorus of voices demanding regime change in Iran has amplified after decades of its people suffering a catalogue of human rights violations. Fears have also escalated that the wounded regime could deploy a dirty bomb in desperation after its nuclear ambitions were largely obliterated by the US and Israel. Kenneth Katzman, who spent 31 years briefing Congress on Iran as a top Middle East Analyst, believes the US should now take little action - except incentivise life under a new regime. Merciless Khamenei, 86, has been in hiding since Israel began a campaign to destroy his nuclear sites - and many senior figures believe his rule could be on its last legs. Katzman told The Sun: "These are the last gasps of a dying regime. "It's still in control nominally but I personally believe this regime is basically lost. Only the real diehards right now are behind this regime. 'Daddy' Trump stopped Israel and Iran war, Nato chief tells 'strong' Don "That doesn't mean it's going to collapse any day now, but it will eventually. This regime is in big trouble." Katzman, who retired in 2022 but has continued to watch Iran cut a menacing figure, said if it was still advise Congress to now "do as little as possible". The analyst, who worked at the US Congressional Research Service, added: "There is a war fever going on now, with a lot of piling on and dredging up past incidents with Iran, past grievances. 'If it were up to me I would say to send some kind of signal that if there is a new regime, the US is willing to lift sanctions, provide humanitarian aid, welcome defectors and investment from Iran. 'Signalling that if the people can get rid of this regime they can have the same future that Syria is now experiencing, where they got rid of a dictator and have had sanctions lifted. 'That would be the tone I would take. The regime can be toppled very suddenly, although it's not toppling just yet. 'If you take it from the Iranian people's perspective, there's no prospect of getting sanctions relief, they're in a war with Israel with no air defense. Evil Ayatollah could unleash dirty bomb, exiled prince warns Exclusive by Katie Davis, Chief Foreign Reporter (Digital), in Paris IRAN'S brutal regime could kill tens of millions of people by smuggling nuclear material and unleashing it on Europe, the rogue nation's exiled prince told The Sun. Reza Pahlavi warned while the US and Israel have eliminated the "immediate threat" of its atomic ambitions, barbaric leaders could still acquire a dirty bomb. Pahlavi, the son of Iran's last Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, warned callous Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could still attempt to utilise his warped allies in a bid to get his hands on nuclear matter. Speaking to The Sun at an undisclosed location in Paris just hours before the ceasefire this week, he said: "Terrorism has many means of hurting big time. Nobody anticipated 9/11. It was a terrorist attack. "What keeps people not to worry about the fact that the call of these terrorist networks of sleeper cells could smuggle in a few grams of enriched plutonium, throw it in a lake in Europe, and instantaneously kill tens of millions of people who will be radioactively attacked. "You don't need a missile or warhead for that. "We have at least eliminated the imminent threat of the regime. Does that mean that the regime still doesn't have the capability to acquire nuclear weapons or a dirty bomb by purchasing it from the North Koreans? "It doesn't eliminate that, that's the entire point." Pahlavi, whose family was forced to leave Iran after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, warned unless the Islamist regime is toppled, the threat of nuclear material being weaponised looms large. The self-styled crown prince - who has been advocating for regime change for decades - announced on Monday he is offering to lead a transitional government to make Iran a democratic, secular country. READ THE SUN'S EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW HERE 'The regime has now brought them into a war with the United States, although that may not continue. I think the people can only take so much.' Last week the US bombed nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan after Iran's devastating missile exchange with Israel. President Donald Trump has since announced a precarious ceasefire, but the world continues to nervously await what happens next. While Iran is currently in a ceasefire with Israel, fears continue to grow as to how long this will last. Trump was this week hailed a 'daddy' by Nato chief Mark Rutte at a landmark meeting in the Netherlands. Iran also finally admitted the US strikes had left their nuclear facilities 'badly damaged'. But it came after Trump made the astonishing claim on Tuesday that Israel and Iran 'don't know what the f*** they're doing' following doubts the agreement had been kept. Katzman believes Iran is very far away from developing a nuclear weapon. 7 And even if it did get one, it would be extremely difficult for it to ever threaten a launch given US and Israeli intelligence. He added: 'I think US intelligence is good enough to detect if they were actually going to try to use a nuclear weapon. 'You need a lot of steps to do that. It's not that easy to conceal, especially with the Mossad agents crawling all over the place as they are right now. 'There are radioactivity detectors. There's a lot of intelligence gathering going on. 'So I don't think it would be that easy for them to just go from where they are now with these destroyed facilities to suddenly producing a nuclear weapon. 'I could be wrong, but I don't think it's that easy.' Asked how the Iranian people could conceivably overthrow the regime, Katzman said he doesn't expect anything to happen soon. 7 Kenneth Katzman spent 31 years briefing Congress on Iran as a top Middle East Analyst Credit: soufangroup 7 Missiles fired by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps towards Israel Credit: Reuters 7 Satellite view shows Fordow in Iran after the US struck the underground nuclear facility Credit: Reuters He believes the conflict must settle first. Katzman added: 'It can be toppled. Is it close to being toppled? No, but it can be. 'Anything can really spark it. We had a partial prison break at Evin Prison. 'You can get incidents. I hear the IRGC is already cracking down by stopping every car that goes by to see if there are Mossad agents in there. 'They're sort of doubling down on their strategy in a way. That can work for a while, but the population is pretty fed up. 'Obviously the population has to get through this crisis first and then it can reassess what to do about the regime. 'So it's not going to do anything right now while the conflict is going on, but ultimately though, there's going to be a reckoning.' On Wednesday Nato leaders pledged to increase their annual defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035. Trump also said he no longer believes the organisation is a 'rip-off'.
Sky News
4 hours ago
- Sky News
Why critics believe Trump's big win in Supreme Court is 'terrifying step towards authoritarianism'
As the president himself said, this was a "giant" of a decision - a significant moment to end a week of whiplash-inducing news. The decision by the US Supreme Court is a big win for President Donald Trump. By a majority of 6-3, the highest court in the land has ruled that federal judges have been overreaching in their authority by blocking or freezing the executive orders issued by the president. Over the last few months, a series of presidential actions by Trump have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal district judges. The federal judges, branded "radical leftist lunatics" by the president, have ruled on numerous individual cases, most involving immigration. They have then applied their rulings as nationwide injunctions - thus blocking the Trump administration's policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy frankly," the president said at a hastily arranged news conference in the White House briefing room. "Instead of merely ruling on the immediate case before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," he said. In simple terms, this ruling, from a Supreme Court weighted towards conservative judges, frees up the president to push on with his agenda, less opposed by the courts. "This is such a big day…," the president said. "It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency, and it only takes bad power away from judges. It takes bad power, sick power and unfair power. "And it's really going to be... a very monumental decision." The country's most senior member of the Democratic Party was to the point with his reaction to the ruling. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it "an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court". In a statement, Schumer wrote: "By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the Court is not defending the Constitution - it's defacing it. "This ruling hands Donald Trump yet another green light in his crusade to unravel the foundations of American democracy." 2:57 Federal power in the US is, constitutionally, split equally between the three branches of government - the executive branch (the presidency), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and other federal courts). They are designed to ensure a separation of power and to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful. This ruling was prompted by a case brought over an executive order issued by President Trump on his inauguration day to end birthright citizenship - that constitutional right to be an American citizen if born here. A federal judge froze the decision, ruling it to be in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has deferred its judgement on this particular case, instead ruling more broadly on the powers of the federal judges. The court was divided along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent. 👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 In her dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: "As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab - but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. "Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are... (wait for it)... the district courts." Another liberal Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, described the majority ruling by her fellow justices as: "Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed during his first term, shifting the balance of left-right power in the court, led this particular ruling. Writing for the majority, she said: "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The focus now for those who deplore this decision will be to apply 'class action' - to file lawsuits on behalf of a large group of people rather than applying a single case to the whole nation. There is no question though that the president and his team will feel significantly emboldened to push through their policy agenda with fewer blocks and barriers. The ruling ends a giddy week for the president. 0:51 Last Saturday he ordered the US military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Within two days he had forced both Israel and Iran to a ceasefire. By mid-week he was in The Hague for the NATO summit where the alliance members had agreed to his defence spending demands. At an Oval Office event late on Friday, where he presided over the signing of a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, he also hinted at a possible ceasefire "within a week" in Gaza.
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump's big win and other takeaways from final Supreme Court decisions
Last year, the court said formers presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, a decision that helped Trump avoid being tried for trying to overturn the 2020 election. And Trump has also been on a winning streak on emergency appeals that the justices decide relatively quickly, without oral arguments. Those emergency actions will continue over the summer, while the court is in recess. But June 27 was the final day for decisions on cases the justices have been considering for months. In addition to ruling on the holds judges put on Trump's changes to birthright citizenship, they handed down opinions about LGBTQ+ schoolbooks, online porn, Obamacare and internet subsidies. Here are the highlights. Justices halt nationwide blocks on Trump policies from lower courts Rather than deal directly with birthright citizenship, the high court instead ordered lower courts to review nationwide blocks on Trump policies. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the 6-3 majority that nationwide orders "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts." Judges have 30 days to review their rulings. "These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," Trump said. "This was a colossal abuse of power." Attorney General Pam Bondi, who complained that 35 of 40 national blocks on Trump policies came from five jurisdictions, said the decision would stop regional judges from becoming "emperors." But states and immigration advocates had warned such a decision would leave a patchwork where newborns are recognized as citizens in nearly half the states where judges have blocked Trump's order but not in other jurisdictions. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit to halt Trump's birthright order in the wake of the high court's decision. "Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. Varu Chilakamarri, a partner at K&L Gates, said the decision could result in more class-action lawsuits or fast-tracking litigation to get decisions from the Supreme Court faster. "The Supreme Court's sweeping rejection of nationwide injunctions sharply limits the power of lower courts to block controversial executive actions," Chilakarmarri said. "But all of those paths will inevitably take longer to unfold - making it harder to stop the broad implementation of highly contested policies." The high court didn't consider the constitutionality of whether Trump's order limiting birthright citizenship for the children of parents in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. Bondi said that decision could come in the court's next session starting in October. Conservaties like Amy Coney Barrett again Maybe Justice Amy Coney Barrett will stop being vilified by Trump supporters. Some of the president's loudest supporters called her diversity, equity and inclusion hire after Barrett (and Chief Justice John Roberts) sided with the court's three liberal justices in a March decision that the Trump administration has to pay foreign aid organizations for work they already did for the government. But Barrett authored the big win for Trump. Conservative commentator Sean Davis said on social media that in Barrett's opinion "nuking universal injunctions," she also "juked" the dissent written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "I want to thank Justice Barrett who wrote the opinion brilliantly," Trump told reporters at the White House. Trump said he wasn't familiar with conservative criticism of Barrett as a "squishy" or "rattled" law professor. "I don't know about that. I just have great respect for her. I always have," Trump said. "Her decision was brilliantly written today, from all accounts." Liberals said conservatives gave in to Trump's 'mockery' of the Constitution While the justices like to emphasize how many of the decisions they hand down are unanimous, the ones that split along ideological lines are more common at the end of the term. In three of the five full opinions handed down on June 27, the court's six conservatives were on one side and the three liberals were on the other. In the decision, limiting how judges can block Trump's policies, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the president "has made a `solemn mockery' of our Constitution." "Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way," she wrote in her dissent. In response to the majority upholding Texas' age verification law for pornographic websites, Justice Elena Kagan said the court should've pushed Texas on whether there's a way to stop minors from seeing sexually explicit content with less of a burden on the First Amendment rights of adults to view the content. In the third decision, Sotomayor said requiring schools to let parents remove their children from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being read "threatens the very essence of public education." Conservatives joined with liberals to reject conservative cases Two more decisions also broke 6-3, but for a different reason. Three of the court's conservatives - Roberts, Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh - joined the three liberals in rejecting conservative challenges to Obamacare and to an internet subsidy program. The court's other three conservatives - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - dissented. In the latest challenge to the 2010 Affordable Care Act - commonly known as Obamacare - the majority turned aside an attack on free access to cancer screenings, drugs that prevent HIV, cholesterol-lowering medication and other preventive health care services. And in a case rooted in a longstanding conservative complaint about Congress delegating too much authority to agencies, the majority said Congress didn't do that when it created a program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans. In a surprise, the court punted on a racial gerrymandering challenge The court was supposed to announce whether Louisiana could keep its congressional map, a decision that would potentially affect the 2026 elections and states' ability to consider race when drawing legislative boundaries. Instead, the court said it wants to hear more arguments first. Why? They didn't say. When? They didn't say that either, except that they will be laying out a timeline "in due course." The case tests the balancing act states must strike when complying with a civil rights law that protects the voting power of a racial minority while not discriminating against other voters. A group of non-Black voters challenged the map as unconstitutional, arguing it relied too heavily on race to sort voters. The state says it drew the lines to protect powerful incumbents like House Speaker Mike Johnson and to comply with a court's decision that it could reasonably create a second majority-Black district. Democrats have the advantage in that district, which could be a factor when voters decide in 2026 which party will control the closely divided House.
