Latest news with #ConsumersResearch
Wall Street Journal
a day ago
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
The Supreme Court's FCC Tax Dodge
Can Congress empower administrative agencies to raise taxes without concrete constraints? Six Justices ruled they can on Friday (FCC v. Consumers' Research) in the Supreme Court's most disappointing decision this term. At issue is a Federal Communications Commission program that Congress established in 1996 to subsidize 'universal service.' The law gives the FCC broad authority to levy taxes on telecom providers and their users to finance universal service, however the agency defines the term. The FCC, in turn, has delegated authority to implement the tax to a nonprofit.
E&E News
a day ago
- Politics
- E&E News
Supreme Court declines to further sap agencies' authority
The Supreme Court on Friday sidestepped reviving a legal doctrine limiting the power lawmakers can give to federal regulators, delivering relief to environmentalists and others who had feared the case would be used to further shackle federal agencies like EPA from addressing issues like climate change. In a 6-3 decision in Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research, the court agreed to uphold a telecommunications service fee that supports phone and internet services for rural and low-income communities. But the court opted not to revive the nearly century-old nondelegation doctrine, with Justice Elena Kagan writing for the majority that 'under our nondelegation precedents, Congress sufficiently guided and constrained the discretion that it lodged with the FCC.' Advertisement 'Today's decision rejected a revival of the nondelegation doctrine — at least for now,' said Andrew Twinamatsiko, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the O'Neill Institute at Georgetown Law. 'But challenges to agency authority will still be an issue to watch.'
The Verge
a day ago
- Business
- The Verge
Low-income broadband fund can keep running, says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that the funding mechanism behind a key broadband subsidy program for schools and underserved areas can continue operating. In a decision issued on Friday, the Supreme Court rejected claims that Congress and the FCC's implementation of the fund is unconstitutional. The program, known as the Universal Service Fund (USF), helps subsidize telecommunications services for low-income consumers, rural health care providers, and schools and libraries. It's administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), a nonprofit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) named to run the program. But conservative advocacy group Consumers' Research, which encourages consumers to 'report woke' on its website, sued to upend that structure, charging that the way Congress and the FCC had delegated power over the program's funding was unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Consumers' Research, and the Supreme Court took up the case when the FCC petitioned the court to review it. Because of what it believes is an unconstitutional structure to fund the USF, Consumers' Research argued in its brief to the court, 'In essence, a private company is taxing Americans in amounts that total billions of dollars every year, under penalty of law, without true governmental accountability.' But USAC isn't running wild with public funds, the US argued. US Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the justices the law 'leaves key policy choices to Congress and is definite and precise enough for courts to tell if FCC followed Congress's limits when filling in details,' according to SCOTUSblog. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that Congress 'sufficiently guided and constrained the discretion that it lodged with the FCC to implement the universal-service contribution scheme,' adding that the FCC 'retained all decision-making authority within that sphere.' Kagan concludes, 'Nothing in those arrangements, either separately or together, violates the Constitution.' NCTA - The Rural Broadband Association, says the USF is critical to providing access to modern communications in rural areas and for low-income families. 'Without USF support, it is difficult to make a business case to invest in many rural areas, to sustain networks once they are built, or to keep service rates affordable,' it says on its website.
Al Arabiya
a day ago
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Supreme Court OKs Fee That Subsidizes Phone, Internet Services in Schools, Libraries and Rural Areas
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the fee that is added to phone bills to provide billions of dollars a year in subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries, and rural areas. The justices, by a 6–3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years. At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans. The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers. A Virginia-based conservative advocacy group, Consumers' Research, had challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumers' Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation's most conservative, ruled 9–7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit held that Congress had given too much authority to the FCC, and the agency, in turn, had ceded too much power to a private entity or administrator. The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the nondelegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine. The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address major questions in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat climate change. But the phone fee case turned out not to be the right one for finding yet another way to restrict federal regulators. President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, defended the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by President Joe Biden's Democratic administration.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court OKs fee that subsidizes phone, internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the fee that is added to phone bills to provide billions of dollars a year in subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas. The justices, by a 6-3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years. At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans. The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers. A Virginia-based conservative advocacy group, Consumers' Research, had challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumers' Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation's most conservative, ruled 9-7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit held that Congress had given too much authority to the FCC and the agency in turn had ceded too much power to a private entity, or administrator. The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the nondelegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine. The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address 'major questions,' in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat climate change. But the phone fee case turned out not to be the right one for finding yet another way to restrict federal regulators. President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, defended the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by President Joe Biden's Democratic administration. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at Mark Sherman, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
