Consumers' Research asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the FCC's USF contribution factor for Q2 of FY 2024 (see 2401100044). In a filing posted Wednesday (docket 24-60160), the group repeated its claim that USF contributions are illegal taxes that the Universal Service Administrative Co. collects and "should be rejected."
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
A coalition of 21 Republican state attorneys general urged the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Consumers' Research's challenge of the FCC's quarterly USF contribution factor and methodology in an amicus brief posted Thursday (docket 23-743). "Agencies are finding all kinds of creative new ways to grab money and power for themselves lately," the coalition, led by West Virginia AG Patrick Morrisey (R), said. The FCC "extracts billions from American consumers based on a vague statute" and "doesn’t even do the work of setting these rates itself," they argued (see 2401100044). The AGs called the FCC's use of the Universal Service Administrative Co. unconstitutional and a violation of the nondelegation doctrine. "Those that would warn the Court away from reaching these issues are wrong," the group said: "The benefits of the present state of play are overstated." The FCC declined to comment Monday. The agency on Monday petitioned the court to extend until April 3 the March 4 deadline for responding to Consumers' Research's petition, citing a parallel case pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit pressed Consumers' Research Friday on its challenge of the FCC's Q2 2023 USF contribution factor (case 23-1091). During oral argument, judges also questioned the group and the FCC about Universal Service Administrative Co. calculations to determine quarterly factors and definition of universal service (see 2401100044).
Following last week’s oral argument in two Chevron cases before the U.S. Supreme Court (see 2401170074), the future of the doctrine appears in doubt.
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Wisconsin Bell failed to persuade the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to grant its petition for an en banc rehearing of an August decision reversing and remanding a lower court ruling regarding how much the company charged schools and libraries through the FCC's E-rate program (see 2308020067). The opinion, released Tuesday in case 22-1515, noted that no judge sought a vote for a rehearing.
Consumers' Research asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant its cert petition challenging the FCC's method for determining the USF quarterly contribution factor, saying the case presents "an excellent vehicle for addressing the contours of nondelegation whose abuses highlight the dangers of delegated and politically unaccountable power." Docketed Friday (docket 23-743), the petition asked the court to review a Dec. 14 decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the Q4 2022 contribution factor (see 2312140058). Responses to the new petition are due Feb. 8.
The FCC asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hold Consumers' Research's challenge of the Q1 2024 USF contribution factor in abeyance until a separate challenge the group filed is decided (see 2401030069), said the commission's motion Friday (docket 24-60006). Consumers' Research previously challenged the Q1 2022 contribution factor, which the court heard en banc in September (see 2309190072). "Because these cases involve the same parties and the same legal issues, it would best serve the interest of judicial economy and efficiency for the court to hold this case in abeyance until it issues a ruling" in the earlier case, the FCC said.