US Supreme Court to scrutinize Federal Communications Commission fund's legality
By John Kruzel and Andrew Chung
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to hear 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 FCC and a coalition of telecommunications firms and interest groups have appealed a lower court's ruling that found that the agency's funding operation effectively levied a "misbegotten tax" on American consumers in violation of the U.S. Constitution's vesting of legislative authority in Congress. It is the latest case to come to the Supreme Court challenging the power of federal agencies.
A law called the Telecommunications Act passed by Congress in 1996 authorized the FCC to operate a "Universal Service Fund," to be drawn from regular contributions by telecommunications companies. The fund draws around $9 billion annually, with the vast majority of telecommunications companies passing on the cost to customers.
At issue in the case is a legal principle called the non-delegation doctrine that involves limits on the ability of Congress to confer powers derived from the Constitution to government agencies like the FCC.
The FCC's handoff of authority to the Universal Service Administrative Company, the private company that administers the fund, involves a related concept known as the private non-delegation doctrine.
The FCC appointed the company to help determine contribution amounts, collect payments from telecommunications businesses and deliver funding to such beneficiaries as low-income Americans, people living in rural areas and Native American tribal lands, as well as schools and libraries.
A set of challengers composed of the conservative group Consumers' Research, a telecommunications carrier and consumers asked the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 to review the legality of funding mechanism.
They argued that Congress had effectively handed off legislative power to the FCC, including the authority to raise revenue, by giving the agency open-ended latitude to operate the universal service fund. The challengers also argued that the FCC had unlawfully transferred authority to the Universal Service Administrative Company and given it an outsized role in determining contribution amounts to be paid by telecommunications companies.
The 5th Circuit in a 9-7 ruling in 2024 deemed the funding arrangement unconstitutional. It did not make individual determinations as to the public and private non-delegation claims, but rather concluded that "the combination of Congress's sweeping delegation to FCC and FCC's unauthorized subdelegation" to the private company violated the constitutional provision giving the legislative power to Congress.
Federal appellate courts have reached different conclusions on the legal question at issue in the case.
The FCC has argued that Congress lawfully conferred power to the agency in authorizing its operation of the fund, and that the 5th Circuit understated the amount of guidance and constraint lawmakers included in the 1996 federal law. It also argued it did not delegate governmental power to the private company that administers the fund.
The FCC was established as an independent federal agency in 1934 and is overseen by Congress.
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.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Iranian construction crews working at Fordow nuclear site after US strikes, satellite images show
Iranian construction crews are busy at work on the surface of the uranium enrichment facility in Fordow five days after the US nailed the underground fortress with 30,000 pound bunker buster bombs, new satellite images showed. Crews operated excavators, bulldozers, and other construction vehicles near the craters and punctures in the ground above the nuclear facility caused by the GBU-57 bunker buster bombs dropped by American B-2s last weekend, according to images captured by Maxar Technologies on Friday. 4 Satellite images released Friday show a flurry of activity on the surface above Fordow's uranium enrichment facility where workers are beginning to build a new road. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies/AFP via Getty Images Advertisement Other images showed apparent construction crews building access roads to the facility and rebuilding the damaged dirt road that led to the bunker laboratory that was targeted by the US as part of Israel's conflict with the Islamic Republic. Satellite images from before the attack showed similar construction activity on the surface of Fordow in the 24-hour period prior to the bunker-busters piercing the desert surface. Those vehicles appeared to be moving unidentified contents out of the facility to a location roughly half-a-mile away. Advertisement 4 Heavy machinery is being used at the site where several 30,000 pound bombs were dropped last Saturday. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies/AFP via Getty Images Officials have stated that there has been no nuclear fallout or contamination as a result of the strikes. Fordow's centrifuges are currently 'no longer operational' according to the UN's nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency. 'It has suffered enormous damage,' IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi told Radio France Internationale on Thursday. Advertisement 'There is very, very, very considerable damage,' Grossi said. The extent of the destruction — and the amount of time the Iranian regime's program has been set back — have yet to be officially determined. 4 The United States started designing the GBU-57 bunker busters 15 years ago just to reach Iran's Fordow enrichment facility. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies/AFP via Getty Images President Trump has said the facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan have all been 'obliterated' and set back years — dismissing a leaked preliminary report from the Defense Intelligence Agency that suggested there was 'low confidence' the Iranian nuclear program had been set back by the massive strike. Advertisement Following that leak, CIA Director John Radcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard both backed up Trump and stated the strikes 'severely damaged' Iran's facilities. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth further pushed back against CNN and the New York Times for 'breathlessly' reporting the leaked preliminary 'low-confidence' assessment of the consequential strike. 4 Images released by the Pentagon showed the cavernous entry point of a bunker buster bomb on the surface of Fordow. Department of Defense Trump fumed about the leaks on social media, writing, 'The Fake News should fire everyone involved in this Witch Hunt, and apologize to our great warriors, and everyone else!' The Department of Justice is now seeking the origin of the leak and has promised to come down on the leaker with the full force of the law.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
California will see ‘devastating' healthcare cuts under GOP bill, Newsom says
As many as 3.4 million Californians could lose their state Medi-Cal health insurance under the budget bill making its way through the U.S. Senate, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday. Newsom said the proposed cuts to healthcare in the 'one big, beautiful bill,' a cornerstone of President Trump's second-term agenda, could force the closure of struggling rural hospitals, reduce government food assistance for those in need and drive up premiums for people who rely on Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace. 'This is devastating,' Newsom said. 'I know that word is often overused in this line of work, but this is, in many ways, an understatement of how reckless and cruel and damaging this is.' Medicaid provides health insurance for about 1 in 5 Americans and generally uses income, rather than employment, as a condition for enrollment. Roughly 15 million Californians, more than a third of the state, are on Medi-Cal, the state's version of Medicaid, with some of the highest percentages in rural counties that supported Trump in the November election. More than half of California children receive healthcare coverage through Medi-Cal. The Senate is still debating its version of the bill. But the current version would require many Medicaid recipients to prove every six months that they work, volunteer or attend school at least 80 hours per month. States would be required to set up their work eligibility verification systems by the end of 2026, just after the midterm elections. States that do not set up those systems could lose federal Medicaid funding. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters last month that the aim of the policy was to encourage poor Americans to contribute and 'return the dignity of work to young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated this month that the requirements would cut about $344 billion in Medicaid spending over a decade and leave 4.8 million more people uninsured. Health policy experts warn that work requirements can lead to people who are eligible, but can't prove it, losing their benefits. Newsom said 5.1 million people in California would need to go through the work verification progress and about one-third would 'likely' meet the requirements. The other two-thirds would 'go through the labyrinth of manual verification,' Newsom said. He said 3 million people in California could lose coverage through the new Medicaid work requirements, and 400,000 more could lose their insurance if they were required to re-verify their eligibility every six months. Newsom said that the state's estimate was based on the number of people who dropped off Medicaid in New Hampshire and Arkansas after those states briefly implemented their own work requirements. Last year, California became the first state in the nation to offer healthcare to low-income undocumented immigrants. The expansion, approved by Newsom and the Democratic-led Legislature, has cost the state billions and drawn sharp criticism from Republicans. Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City), who has previously called on Newsom to walk back that coverage, said on social media Friday that Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders had 'obliterated' the healthcare system. Newsom's budget proposal in May proposed substantial cuts to the healthcare program for undocumented immigrants, including freezing new enrollment in 2026, requiring adults to pay $100 monthly premiums and cutting full dental coverage. Lawmakers ultimately agreed to require undocumented immigrant adults ages 19 to 59 to pay $30 monthly premiums beginning July 2027. Their plan adopts Newsom's enrollment cap but gives people three months to reapply if their coverage lapses instead of immediately cutting off their eligibility. Democrats agreed to cut full dental coverage for adult immigrants who are undocumented, but delayed the change until July 1, 2026. In Congress, the GOP bill could also pose a serious threat to 16 struggling hospitals in 14 rural counties, which received a $300-million lifeline in interest-free loans in 2023, Newsom said. He said the Republican members of Congress in California who supported the bill and represent rural parts of California, including Central Valley Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) and Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), are 'gutting an already vulnerable system.' Some senators are pushing to change a requirement that would require states to freeze and cut by half the tax they impose on Medicaid providers, slashing a key source of funding for rural hospitals. Michelle Baass, the director of the California Department of Health Care Services, said that change could be 'fatal for the many rural and critical-access hospitals that are already financially strained.' Newsom said in aggregate, the cuts could threaten California's progress in reducing the share of residents without health insurance, which stands at about 6.4%.
Time Business News
an hour ago
- Time Business News
Avoiding Dual Taxation: Why Renouncing Citizenship Makes Financial Sense
Introduction: When Patriotism Costs Too Much In an era of intensified global tax enforcement, increasing automatic data sharing, and expanding fiscal compliance obligations, more high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs), digital nomads, entrepreneurs, and offshore investors are taking an unprecedented step: renouncing their citizenship. While citizenship was once considered untouchable, it is now seen by many as a financial liability, particularly when it triggers dual taxation across borders. This press release from Amicus International Consulting examines why citizenship renunciation has become a financial strategy in 2025, particularly for individuals burdened by overlapping tax obligations from both their country of origin and their country of residence. It highlights which countries create the most punitive tax structures, explains the legal steps involved in renunciation, and showcases real-world case studies of individuals who chose sovereignty over taxation. What Is Dual Taxation? Dual taxation refers to a situation in which an individual is taxed on the same income, assets, or capital gains by two or more countries. This typically arises when: A person holds citizenship in one country but resides or earns income in another but Both countries have the authority to tax global income Tax treaties fail to eliminate redundancy or apply only partial credits While tax treaties exist to mitigate these issues, they are often complex, ineffective, or filled with exemptions that still leave citizens overexposed to global tax burdens. Section I: The U.S. Tax Trap—Why Americans Lead in Renunciation The United States remains the only developed country that imposes citizenship-based taxation, meaning all U.S. citizens are required to file and potentially pay taxes on their worldwide income, regardless of their place of residence. U.S. Citizens Abroad Must: File annual IRS tax returns (Form 1040) Submit FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Reports) if foreign accounts exceed $10,000 (Foreign Bank Account Reports) if foreign accounts exceed $10,000 Report foreign investments via FATCA (Form 8938) (Form 8938) Face double reporting with foreign financial institutions forced to comply under FATCA Record-Breaking Renunciations In 2024, the U.S. saw over 10,500 individuals officially give up their citizenship—a number driven not by politics but by tax exhaustion. Many cited the high cost of compliance, punitive exit taxes, and the global reach of U.S. taxation as unsustainable. The Cost of Holding U.S. Citizenship Abroad Annual Cost Category Average Expense Tax prep/compliance (basic) $3,000–$10,000+ FATCA-related legal advisory $5,000–$20,000 Penalties for non-disclosure Up to $100,000+ Time spent on reporting 40–80 hours/year Section II: Other Nations Where Dual Taxation Hurts the Most While the U.S. is the most well-known offender, other countries also create dual taxation traps, including: 1. France Taxes on global income if you are a French tax resident, even if you hold another passport. An exit tax applies to unrealized gains if you relocate. Some double-tax treaties don't cover certain investment vehicles. 2. South Africa Worldwide income is taxed unless you sever residency-based taxation via financial emigration. via financial emigration. High-income earners working abroad are still required to declare foreign income. 3. India Resident but not ordinarily resident (RNOR) status still requires disclosure of foreign assets. Double taxation persists in real estate and capital gains. 4. Canada Taxes global income for residents, even non-citizens on long-term visas. Severing ties requires proof of permanent departure, and exit taxes may apply. Who Suffers the Most? Dual taxation disproportionately affects: Retired expats living abroad on pensions or trusts living abroad on pensions or trusts Remote workers earning globally distributed income earning globally distributed income Crypto traders holding tokens in offshore jurisdictions holding tokens in offshore jurisdictions Entrepreneurs managing cross-border companies managing cross-border companies Multinational executives paid in multiple jurisdictions Section III: Renouncing Citizenship as a Financial Exit Strategy Legal Basis Renunciation is permitted under international law, and nearly every country offers a formal process. In the U.S., it involves: Appearing at a U.S. consulate Signing Form DS-4080 (Oath of Renunciation) Submitting Form DS-4079 Paying a $2,350 processing fee Completing IRS Form 8854 to mark tax exit The Exit Tax: The Final Toll The U.S. imposes an exit tax on certain renunciants if: Their average annual income tax liability exceeds ~$190,000 (indexed annually) Their net worth is $2 million+ They fail to certify 5 years of tax compliance What's taxed? Your entire global portfolio is considered sold the day before renunciation, and capital gains taxes are applied—even if no asset was sold. Other Countries With Exit Taxes: Country Exit Tax Description France Unrealized capital gains on shares and securities Canada Departure tax on worldwide property Spain Exit tax on unrealized gains above thresholds Section IV: Countries That Welcome Former Citizens With No Tax Strings The goal after renunciation is to resettle in a country that: Does not tax non-resident citizens Has a territorial tax system Offers residency or citizenship with low fiscal exposure Ideal Post-Renunciation Destinations: 1. Panama Territorial taxation Friendly Nations Visa available No tax on offshore income 2. UAE No personal income tax Strong business infrastructure Welcomes HNWIs and family offices 3. Paraguay Residency for $5,000 bank deposit No tax on foreign income Simple documentation 4. Vanuatu Zero personal income tax Citizenship by investment in under 60 days No reporting to CRS or FATCA 5. Saint Kitts and Nevis Passport issued in 90 days No global income tax Full confidentiality for offshore holdings Section V: Case Studies in Strategic Renunciation Case Study 1: Crypto Wealth and Caribbean Reinvention An early Bitcoin investor based in California relocated to the UAE in 2022. After consulting Amicus, he renounced U.S. citizenship in 2024 and acquired Saint Kitts citizenship. By 2025, he was fully non-resident, held no tax obligations to the U.S., and legally realized token gains via offshore trusts. Case Study 2: The Consultant Who Outgrew the IRS A Canadian-American strategy consultant living in Germany found herself filing returns in three countries—each claiming taxing rights. After renouncing U.S. citizenship in Frankfurt, she streamlined her tax exposure and relocated to Portugal under the Non-Habitual Resident (NHR) program. Her annual tax advisory bill dropped by 75%. Case Study 3: Dual Taxed and Denied An Indian national working remotely in Dubai continued facing tax scrutiny from Indian authorities over U.S. stock dividends. After giving up Indian citizenship and securing Grenadian CBI status, he legally shifted his financial center of gravity and opened new offshore accounts without fear of dual reporting or seizure. Section VI: Common Misconceptions Misconception Reality 'I'll become stateless' Most people secure second citizenship before renouncing 'Renunciation eliminates past taxes' You must still file and pay prior obligations before exit 'My bank will block me' New citizenship often expands financial options, not shrinks them 'It's illegal to avoid tax' Legal tax minimization via renunciation is 100% compliant with law Section VII: The Role of Amicus International Consulting Amicus provides expert legal and financial advisory for those seeking to escape dual taxation through legal channels: U.S. citizenship renunciation support Second citizenship planning and acquisition Asset protection pre-exit via offshore trusts Exit tax mitigation Banking passport solutions CRS/FATCA detachment strategies We do not engage in tax evasion. All services are structured around legal transparency, cross-jurisdictional protection, and long-term asset security. Why Timing Matters Renunciation isn't a quick fix—it's a strategic transition that must be executed with precision. Acting in the wrong tax year, renouncing before securing alternative banking, or failing to comply with prior reporting can trigger audits, fines, or even international asset freezes. Conclusion: The Price of Freedom—or the Cost of Staying? In 2025, citizenship is no longer a static identity—it is a financial choice. For many, staying tied to countries with expansive, outdated, or punitive tax systems is simply too costly. By legally renouncing citizenship and choosing a more efficient jurisdiction, individuals are reclaiming control over their wealth, privacy, and global mobility. If dual taxation is draining your financial freedom, renunciation may be the smartest investment you'll ever make. 📞 Contact InformationPhone: +1 (604) 200-5402Email: info@ Website:
