A coalition of industry groups on Friday challenged the FCC's net neutrality order and declaratory ruling reclassifying broadband as a Communications Act Title II telecom service (see 2405310074). The coalition asked the FCC to stay the effective date of its order and declaratory ruling pending judicial review. Coalition members included USTelecom, NCTA, CTIA, ACA Connects and several state broadband associations.
A coalition of industry groups on Friday challenged the FCC's net neutrality order and declaratory ruling reclassifying broadband as a Communications Act Title II telecom service.
The net neutrality draft order on the FCC's April 25 open meeting agenda (see 2404030043) will face much the same legal arguments as the 2015 net neutrality order did, with many of the same parties involved, we're told by legal experts and net neutrality watchers.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act “protects Americans’ right to privacy,” and the district court’s Nov. 6 opinion dismissing plaintiff Jacob Howard’s complaint against the Republican National Committee (see 2311150003), “must be reversed, so that it continues” to protect that right, said Howard’s opening brief Wednesday (docket 23-3826) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
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.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared receptive to industry arguments that the court should overturn, or at least narrow, the Chevron doctrine, which gives agencies like the FCC and FTC deference in interpreting laws that Congress passes. The court heard oral argument Wednesday for more than 3.5 hours in two cases challenging Chevron deference, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Commerce. Both concern fishing regulations and don’t touch directly on communications regulation.
Even in “hard cases,” courts must exercise independent judgment and determine the “original public meaning” of federal statutes “based on their best understanding of statutory text, structure, history, purpose, and precedent,” but Chevron “flouts these principles,” said the petitioners’ U.S. Supreme Court reply brief Friday (docket 22-1219) in Relentless v. Commerce Department in support of overruling Chevron.