Latest news with #UniversalServiceFund
Yahoo
2 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
Politico
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Politico
Obamacare decision makes way for debate on what's preventive
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.
Economic Times
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
Supreme Court Key Rulings: All details about birthright citizenship, Obamacare task force, LGBTQ school books
The US Supreme Court delivered multiple rulings, allowing Trump's plan to limit birthright citizenship to proceed, upholding health care protections, preserving rural internet subsidies, and supporting parents' religious objections to LGBTQ books in schools. Each decision reflects ongoing national debates over executive authority, federal programs and individual constitutional rights. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Birthright Citizenship Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Obamacare Task Force Internet Subsidy Program Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs On Friday, the US Supreme Court issued four major decisions. These rulings involved the Trump administration's birthright citizenship proposal, preventive health care coverage, rural internet funding and religious objections to LGBTQ-themed books in schools. Each ruling came through a 6-3 vote, mostly along ideological Court allowed the Trump administration to take steps toward ending automatic birthright citizenship. In a 6-3 ruling, it limited the use of nationwide injunctions. Judges may now issue injunctions only for parties involved in the Amy Coney Barrett wrote that courts should not exceed their authority, even if they find executive actions unlawful. She added that lower courts must quickly decide how wide any injunction should ruling does not decide the legality of the policy itself. The Trump order redefines birthright citizenship, making it available only to children of US citizens or legal residents. The 14th Amendment currently guarantees citizenship to almost anyone born in the country, except children of Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, called the ruling a threat to the rule of law. She urged plaintiffs to file class action suits, which the ruling still executive order remains blocked in New Hampshire due to a separate case. Still, the decision allows the proposal to move ahead in other another 6-3 ruling, the Court upheld the authority of a government task force under the Affordable Care Act. The task force recommends preventive services that insurers must cover at no challenge came from Christian-owned businesses. They argued that the task force held unchecked power because its members were not Senate-confirmed. The Court 150 million Americans currently receive free preventive services under this arrangement. These include screenings and medications related to cancer, HIV, and Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. They questioned the structure and influence of the task Court upheld the Universal Service Fund (USF), which supports phone and internet access in rural areas, schools and hospitals. The decision rejected a challenge from Consumers' Research, which claimed Congress gave too much authority to the FCC and a private fund, started in 1996, distributes about $8 billion a year. It supports low-income users and underserved Elena Kagan wrote for the majority. She said the funding structure does not violate the Constitution. Justices Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito decision keeps the USF intact. Both the Biden and Trump administrations defended the Court sided with parents who objected to their children reading LGBTQ-themed books in Maryland elementary schools. The 6-3 ruling found that the school board's refusal to offer opt-outs violated religious Samuel Alito wrote that denying opt-outs placed a burden on parents' right to exercise their religion. The books include stories involving same-sex marriage and transgender case arose after a school board revised its English curriculum in 2022 to reflect diverse families. Initially, opt-outs were offered but later plaintiffs included Muslim, Catholic and Orthodox Christian families. A federal judge and appeals court had sided with the school board, but the Supreme Court reversed that Court allowed the Trump administration to proceed by limiting court injunctions, without ruling on whether the plan itself is Court upheld a task force's authority under the ACA to mandate no-cost preventive services, benefiting over 150 million Americans.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Upholds FCC Telecom Subsidy Fund
The US Supreme Court upheld, in a 6-3 vote, the $8.6 billion Universal Service Fund, the annual slate of subsidies that helps cover the cost of telecom services for low-income people, rural residents, schools and libraries. Tyler Kendall reports on Bloomberg Television. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Politico
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Politico
499 pages of opinions
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.
