US Supreme Court to decide Federal Communications Commission fund's legality
Congress in 1996 authorized FCC to operate the fund
Case involves the non-delegation legal doctrine
Adds industry reaction in paragraphs 10-11
By John Kruzel
WASHINGTON, Nov 22 (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide the legality of a congressionally authorized fund operated by the Federal Communications Commission to expand access to telecommunications services in a challenge accusing Congress of unlawfully delegating its authority to an independent federal agency.
The justices took up an appeal by the FCC and a coalition of interest groups and telecommunications firms of a lower court's decision that found Congress violated the U.S. Constitution by empowering the FCC to manage the fund. The court is expected to hear arguments in the case and issue a ruling by the end of June.
Congress in a federal law called the Telecommunications Act of 1996 authorized the FCC to operate the Universal Service Fund to promote broad access to services such as phone and broadband internet.
All telecommunications carriers contribute to the fund, which draws around $9 billion annually. The fund helps to extend service to people in rural areas, provides subsidies for low-income Americans, expands service in Native American tribal lands and assists schools and libraries.
A group of challengers including the conservative group Consumers' Research filed lawsuits against the FCC and the U.S. government, arguing that Congress delegated its revenue-raising function to the FCC in violation of the Constitution. The challengers also argued that the FCC unlawfully transferred its authority to the Universal Service Administrative Company, a private nonprofit that helps the agency administer the fund.
The case involves the non-delegation doctrine, a legal concept that embraces the view that Congress cannot delegate the legislative powers given to it under the Constitution to other entities. The legality of the FCC's handoff of power involves a similar concept known as the private non-delegation doctrine.
The FCC was established as an independent federal agency by the Communications Act of 1934 and is overseen by Congress.
Federal appellate courts have reached different conclusions on the legal question at issue in the case.
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review a ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found the funding arrangement unconstitutional, granting an appeal by the FCC and various interest groups.
Three industry groups representing telecommunications companies said in a joint statement they were pleased the high court will review the lower court ruling.
"It threatens to undermine universal service programs that, for many decades, have served to promote the availability and affordability of critical communications services for millions of rural and low-income consumers, rural health care facilities, and schools and libraries across the nation," said the Rural Broadband Association, Competitive Carriers Association and USTelecom, which represent AT&T T.N Verizon VZ.N, T-Mobile TMUS.O and other major companies.
The justices have not acted on separate appeals by Consumers' Research and other interested parties of lower court rulings that found the funding arrangement constitutional.
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has reined in the actions of federal regulatory agencies in a series of rulings in recent years, though those cases did not involve the non-delegation doctrine.
Reporting by John Kruzel and David Shepardson; Editing by Will Dunham and Deepa Babington
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
