Latest news with #Louisiana-based
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
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. In a 6-3 decision, the court said Congress set clear guidance on how the program should work. "For nearly three decades, the work of Congress and the (Federal Communications) Commission in establishing universal-service programs has led to a more fully connected country," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority. "And it has done so while leaving fully intact the separation of powers integral to our Constitution." Three of the court's six conservatives dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch said the majority wrongly concluded that an executive agency can decide for itself what taxes to impose, a power only Congress has. "The framers divided power among legislative, executive, and judicial branches not out of desire for formal tidiness, but to ensure ours would indeed be a Nation ruled by `We the People,'" Gorsuch wrote in a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. 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. Gus Hurwitz, senior fellow at the Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, said he's not surprised the challenge failed. He called it an aggressive attempt to get the court to stop Congress from delegating power to the executive branch. But the justices have been addressing that concern in other ways, Hurwitz said, including through its "major questions doctrine" ruling that agencies should have less power to act unless there's clear congressional approval. The lead case of the two that were consolidated for arguments is Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court upholds Universal Service Fund for internet, phone
USA Today
16 hours ago
- Business
- USA Today
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.
USA Today
a day ago
- Business
- USA Today
Raising Cane's is opening 5 restaurants next month. Did your state make the list?
As summer continues, more eateries are expanding, including Raising Cane's. The Baton Rouge, Louisiana-based chain is known for its chicken fingers, Cane's sauce and Texas toast. According to a Raising Cane's representative, new locations are opening in four different states next month, including California, Nevada, Illinois and Florida. Here's what to know about next month's Raising Cane's openings and where they'll be. Which states are getting new Raising Cane's locations? New locations will open: What is Raising Cane's known for? The company sells chicken sandwiches and chicken finger combos including crinkle-cut fries, Texas Toast, coleslaw and Cane's sauce, which the company said is made with a "special blend of spices." Raising Cane's owner Todd Graves initially planned to call his restaurant Sockeye's, a nod to the salmon he once fished in Alaska. However, a friend suggested he name the company after his yellow Labrador Retriever, Raising Cane, who spent lots of time at the construction site of the first Raising Cane's location at the north gates of Louisiana State University. The dog, Cane I, served as the company's mascot until he died in 1998, according to the company. He was friendly and loved to wear Graves' sunglasses, the company said. Raising Cane's second mascot, Cane II, stepped into her role in 1999. She was a therapy dog who visited hospital patients around the country. As the company mascot, Cane II spent time at the company's Restaurant Support Office and attended community events until 2016. Most recently, Cane III, born in 2017, was appointed mascot. "She loves visiting Raising Cane's Restaurants and receiving belly rubs from crewmembers," the company said, noting that Raising Cane's fans can follow her on social media at @RaisingCane3. Saleen Martin is a reporter on USA TODAY's NOW team. She is from Norfolk, Virginia – the 757. Email her at sdmartin@
San Francisco Chronicle
3 days ago
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
Crown Crafts: Fiscal Q4 Earnings Snapshot
GONZALES, La. (AP) — GONZALES, La. (AP) — Crown Crafts Inc. (CRWS) on Wednesday reported a loss of $10.8 million in its fiscal fourth quarter. The Gonzales, Louisiana-based company said it had a loss of $1.04 per share. Losses, adjusted for one-time gains and costs, came to 4 cents per share. The maker of children's products posted revenue of $23.2 million in the period. For the year, the company reported a loss of $9.4 million, or 90 cents per share. Revenue was reported as $87.3 million. _____
Winnipeg Free Press
3 days ago
- Business
- Winnipeg Free Press
Louisiana files lawsuits alleging pharmaceutical giant CVS deceived customers in text messages
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Louisiana filed several lawsuits accusing pharmaceutical giant CVS of abusing customer information and using its dominant market position to drive up drug costs and unfairly undermine independent pharmacies, the state's attorney general said Tuesday. Attorney General Liz Murrill began investigating CVS after the company sent out mass text messages to thousands of residents on June 11 to lobby against legislation that took aim at its business structure. The texts warned that medication costs could go up and all CVS pharmacies in the state would close. The lawsuits, which were filed Monday in central Louisiana's St. Landry Parish, seek 'injunctive relief, civil penalties and restitution,' Murrill said. CVS 'abused customers' sensitive information to push a political message,' Republican Gov. Jeff Landry said Tuesday at a press conference. He noted CVS had lobbied his wife over text via the same messaging chain normally used to notify her about picking up a prescription drug or other healthcare-related matters. One lawsuit argues that the text message lobbying constituted 'unfair or deceptive acts' in violation of state trade law. Two Louisiana-based law firms have filed a separate class action lawsuit against CVS over the text messages. CVS has denied any wrongdoing. 'Our communication with CVS customers, patients and members of the community was consistent with the law,' CVS said in an emailed statement. 'We believe it was important for people to know about a potential disruption to where they get their medicine.' Two other lawsuits allege that CVS artificially inflates prices for consumers and independent pharmacies. CVS serves as a pharmacy benefit manager — essentially an intermediary that buys medication from manufacturers and distributes drugs to pharmacies. CVS and the mail-order pharmacy Express Scripts dominate the market by processing about eight out of every 10 prescription drug claims, according to the Federal Trade Commission, which warned in a 2024 report that this allows for 'inflating drug costs and squeezing Main Street pharmacies.' Because CVS also owns a vast network of retail pharmacies — including 119 in Louisiana — it sets the terms for how prescription drugs are sold to customers there. The proposed law that sparked the text messages from CVS had sought to ban pharmacy benefit managers like CVS from owning drug stores. The law failed to pass, but Landry has stated he will seek to revive it. In the state's litigation, Murrill alleges that CVS business structure and practices allow the company to 'manipulate prices, restrict competition and channel profits internally.' One lawsuit accuses CVS of 'systematically under-reimbursing independent Louisiana pharmacies to the point of economic hardship, while routing patients to CVS-owned facilities.' The lawsuit alleges that CVS imposes 'unethical, unscrupulous, and exorbitantly high fees on independent pharmacies.' CVS said that it should not have to pay higher rates for 'less efficient pharmacies' and that this would lead to 'higher costs for consumers.' 'Importantly, CVS Pharmacy remains the lowest cost pharmacy and a critical partner in lowering prescription drug costs for Louisianans,' the company said. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. Another lawsuit argues that CVS uses its market control to exclude lower-cost drugs for 'high-rebate, high-price brand drugs' and other practices that 'distort the drug market' and 'drive up costs for the state's public health programs and its citizens.' CVS said that its business structure allows for 'better access, affordability, and advocacy for those we serve.' The company said that removing CVS pharmacies from Louisiana would increase costs to the state by more than $4.6 million. Landry said he would seek new legislation targeting CVS if existing laws were insufficient to win in court. ___ Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
