Supreme Court OKs Fee That Subsidizes Phone, Internet Services in Schools, Libraries and Rural Areas
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the fee that is added to phone bills to provide billions of dollars a year in subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries, and rural areas.
The justices, by a 6–3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years. At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans. The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers. A Virginia-based conservative advocacy group, Consumers' Research, had challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumers' Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation's most conservative, ruled 9–7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit held that Congress had given too much authority to the FCC, and the agency, in turn, had ceded too much power to a private entity or administrator.
The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the nondelegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine. The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address major questions in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat climate change. But the phone fee case turned out not to be the right one for finding yet another way to restrict federal regulators. President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, defended the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by President Joe Biden's Democratic administration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
University of Virginia President Resigns Under Trump Administration Pressure on DEI, AP Source Says
The president of the University of Virginia is resigning his position under pressure from the Justice Department, which had pushed for his departure amid scrutiny of the school's diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, a person familiar with the matter said Friday. The departure of James Ryan, who had led the school since 2018, represents a dramatic escalation in the Trump administration's effort to reshape higher education. Doing it at a public university marks a new frontier in a campaign that has almost exclusively targeted Ivy League schools. It also widens the rationale behind the government's aggressive tactics, focusing on DEI rather than alleged tolerance of antisemitism. Ryan had faced conservative criticism that he had failed to heed federal orders to eliminate DEI policies, and his removal was pushed by the Justice Department as a way to help resolve a department inquiry targeting the school, according to the person, who was not authorized to discuss the move by name and spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press. The New York Times first reported on the resignation and the Justice Department's insistence on it. The Justice Department declined to comment Friday.
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Republicans Hit Major Setback in Their Effort to Ease Regulations on Gun Silencers
Republican efforts to loosen regulations on gun silencers and short-barreled rifles and shotguns have been dealt a big setback. The Senate parliamentarian advised that the proposal would need to clear a 60-vote threshold if included in their big tax and immigration bill. Gun rights groups had been lobbying aggressively for the measure, which would essentially treat silencers and the short-barreled firearms like long guns. Gun-control groups celebrated the parliamentarian's ruling, saying the items have been regulated for nearly 100 years for good reason–they are a threat to first responders and communities. The House version of the GOP's bill removed silencers–called suppressors by the gun industry–from a 1930s law that regulates firearms considered the most dangerous. In the process, it would have eliminated a $200 tax. The Senate kept the provision on silencers in its version of the bill and expanded upon it, adding short-barreled or sawed-off rifles and shotguns. Under the National Firearms Act, potential buyers of the regulated weapons must also undergo a fingerprint-based background check. There is no deadline for such checks. The process is arguably more thorough than the name-based background check completed for other firearms purchases. Lawmakers said the silencers provision was deemed by the Senate parliamentarian to be in violation of the Byrd Rule. This rule stipulates that the budget changes sought in the legislation cannot be merely incidental to the policy changes. The special rules are designed to deter provisions unrelated to spending or taxes from being included in the bill. 'It's no surprise that Republicans will jump at any opportunity to please the gun lobby by rolling back gun safety measures, but that kind of policy does not belong in a reconciliation bill,' said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. Gun rights groups complained about the $200 tax and how the background check process often takes weeks and even months for silencers and short-barreled weapons. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, said before the ruling that the proposed changes were aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argued that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing-safe levels,' Keane said. John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, disagreed with the parliamentarian's ruling, noting that she was originally appointed by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. 'Nevertheless, we remain committed to working with our allies on Capitol Hill to end the unjust tax burden on these constitutionally-protected arms,' Commerford said. Groups opposed to the measure included Giffords, the gun violence prevention organization co-founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords, who was grievously wounded in a 2011 mass shooting in her district. Emma Brown, the group's executive director, said removing safeguards on gun silencers would have made it easier for violent criminals to escape, putting both law enforcement and civilians at greater risk. 'What's more, removing safeguards on short-barreled firearms would have only enabled more criminals to access these easily concealable weapons, which can be easily brought into large crowds,' Brown said. The gun language had broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. It is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items that were included to entice members to vote for the legislation and will have broad implications in the years to come.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
What We Are Reading Today: ‘Private Finance, Public Power'
Authors: Peter Conti-Brown and Sean H. Vanatta Banks in America are private institutions with private shareholders, boards of directors, profit motives, customers, and competitors. And yet the public plays a key role in deciding what risks are taken as well as how, when, and to what end. Public-private negotiations over financial governance has evolved into an essential ecosystem of banking risk management. In 'Private Finance, Public Power,' Peter Conti-Brown and Sean Vanatta offer a new history of finance and public policy in the US by examining the idiosyncratic way the nation manages financial risk across the public-private divide. Covering two centuries, from the founding of the Republic to the early 1980s, Conti-Brown and Vanatta describe the often-contested, sometimes chaotic, engagement of bankers, politicians, bureaucrats, and others in the overlapping spaces of the public-private system of bank supervision.
