Supreme Court skeptical of challenge to phone and internet subsidy program for under-served areas

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Wed Mar 26, 2025, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: NBC News

March 26, 2025, 6:00 AM EDT / Updated March 26, 2025, 1:42 PM EDT


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared unlikely to strike down a Federal Communications Commission program that subsidizes telecommunications services in rural and low-income areas.

Although the court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has undercut the authority of government agencies in a series of recent decisions, justices expressed reservations about the legal argument made by challengers.

The case concerns whether Congress in a 1996 law exceeded its authority in setting up the Universal Service Fund, which requires telecommunications services to submit payments to subsidize “universal service." The fees, which are passed on to customers, raise billions of dollars a year that are spent on providing phone and internet services, including for schools, libraries and hospitals.

A second, connected legal question is whether the FCC could delegate its own authority to a private corporation it set up called the Universal Service Administrative Company to administer the fund. The case seeks to have the court to breathe new life into the “nondelegation doctrine,” which states that Congress has limited powers to delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-hears-fcc-case-weaken-power-federal-agencies-rcna197975

---

Article updated.

Original article/headline -

Supreme Court hears FCC case that could weaken power of federal agencies

March 26, 2025, 6:00 AM EDT


WASHINGTON — The latest attempt by conservatives to undermine the federal bureaucracy reaches the Supreme Court on Wednesday as the justices consider whether the Federal Communications Commission unlawfully wields power via a program that subsidizes telecommunications services in underserved regions.

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has in a series of recent decisions undercut the authority of government agencies and advanced a deregulatory agenda largely favored by business interests and Republicans.

The case concerns whether Congress in a 1996 law exceeded its authority in setting up the Universal Service Fund, which requires telecommunications services to submit payments to subsidize “universal service” in low-income and rural areas.

The fees, which are passed on to customers, raise billions of dollars a year that are spent on providing phone and internet services, including for schools, libraries and hospitals.

[AmericaUnderSiege]

1. Kangaroo court's decision is already written for them.

We have now spent more of this century under unelected tyrants than American Presidents.

[Initech]

2. What could possibly go wrong?

[Martin68]

3. I hope SCOTUS blocks this travesty.

[onenote]

5. Why so you think the Universal Service Fund is a "travesty"? And why are you aligning yourself with the RW?

You know who thinks its a travesty and wants it struck down? Fifteen GOP attorney generals. Cato Institute. Firearms Policy Coalition.

You know who is defending it? The National Federation of the Blind. The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The Schools, Health and Libraries Coalition. It was the Biden administration that asked the Supreme Court to take the case to overturn the appeals court decision against the USF.

Might want to re-think your position.

[Martin68]

6. one note, I don't understand your bizarre comments on my post. I fully support Biden's " phone and internet subsidy

program for under-served areas." The headline says the Supreme Court is skeptical of the MAGAt challenge to that law, which means they are inclined to support " phone and internet subsidy program for under-served areas." I consider the effort to block the subsidy be a travesty. I hope SCOTUS blocks the effort to repeal the subsidy. WTF are you spouting off about?

[onenote]

8. Your six word post was the antithesis of clarity.

But thanks for clarifying.

[Martin68]

9. And you jumped to the least likely conclusion available. Congratulations! That was the antithesis of logical.

[highplainsdem]

4. More from Reuters on what looks likely to be a good decision for us:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-scrutinize-federal-communications-commission-funds-legality-2025-03-26/

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared sympathetic on Wednesday to the Federal Communications Commission's defense of the mechanism it uses to fund a multi-billion dollar effort to expand phone and broadband internet access to low-income and rural Americans and other beneficiaries.

The justice heard arguments in an appeal by the agency and a coalition of telecommunications firms and interest groups of a lower court's ruling that the FCC funding operation effectively levied a "misbegotten tax" on consumers in violation of the U.S. Constitution's vesting of legislative authority in Congress.

-snip-

A majority of the nine justices, citing a range of concerns, seemed wary of adopting the lower court's ruling against the FCC.

-snip-

Several liberal and conservative justices voiced worries that striking down the part of law that authorized the FCC's fund would imperil similar funding setups at the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

-snip-

This suggests SCOTUS will protect the FDIC as well, despite Trump/Musk wanting to get rid of it.

[Miguelito Loveless]

7. We may get a bone

on this, so they can screw us on the bigger stuff later.