
Supreme Court upholds $8 billion fund for internet and phone service
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled an $8 billion fund that provides telephone and internet service in rural and low-income communities is constitutional, a break from a string of major rulings by the high court that have sharply curtailed the power of federal agencies.
In a 6-3 ruling, the justices found Congress properly granted the Federal Communications Commission discretion to collect fees from telecommunications companies to pay for the Universal Service Fund, which helps ensure equal access to critical communication services.
It was one of six decisions expected Friday, the final day of the Supreme Court term.
The ruling is a blow to conservatives who had hoped the high court would — for the first time since 1935 — find that Congress had violated a constitutional provision that bars it from delegating too much of its legislative authority to other branches of the government, namely the executive and federal agencies.
Conservatives have long sought to revive the 'nondelegation doctrine' as a means to check a federal bureaucracy they feel has grown too large and powerful. A decision striking down the fund could have opened the door to a host of legal challenges against other powers Congress has granted to agencies.
The decision comes almost exactly a year after the high court dramatically reshaped the regulatory landscape, striking down a 40-year-old precedent that held judges must grant broad leeway to agency's interpretation of ambiguous laws as long as those interpretations are reasonable. The Chevron doctrine formed the basis of thousands of regulations dealing with drugs, workplace safety and the environment.
The conservative supermajority on the court has steadily rolled back regulation in recent terms, curbing the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to limit greenhouse gases, runoff in wetlands and air pollution that drifts across state lines. The justices also struck down in-house tribunals at the Securities and Exchange Commission that target securities fraud.
The Universal Service Fund was created under the 1996 Telecommunications Act to provide phone and web connections to remote communities, rural hospitals, libraries and schools, and those who couldn't otherwise afford it. Telecom companies tack fees onto customers' bills to make payments to the fund. Critics contend the fund collects too much money and is inefficient and wasteful.
Consumers Research, a conservative group, challenged the Universal Service Fund, along with consumers and a carrier. The petitioners argued Congress did not have the authority to give the FCC what is essentially the power to levy a tax.
They said the nondelegation issue was compounded because the FCC had created a non-profit company to administer the fund. The company remains under the oversight and control of the FCC and has no independent regulatory authority.
'In essence, a private company is taxing Americans in amounts that total billions of dollars every year, under penalty of law, without true governmental accountability," the groups wrote in their filing with the high court.
A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled against the groups, before the full appeals court reversed that decision. The full court held the combination of Congress giving the FCC 'sweeping' powers and the FCC, in turn, granting some of that authority to a private company insulated the fund from accountability to voters.
The Biden administration appealed that decision to the Supreme Court last year, and the Trump administration has continued to defend the government's position.
The courts have long given Congress broad leeway to delegate quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative tasks to federal agencies if Congress articulates an 'intelligible principle' to constrain the use of the delegation. In a filing last year on the United Fund case, then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that standard was more than satisfied, citing rules Congress had enacted that dictate the fund's operation.
'The Act, in short, provides comprehensive guidance to the FCC on how to implement Congress's universal service policy,' Prelogar wrote.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
12 minutes ago
- CNN
Key House GOP centrist will not seek reelection, opening up major swing seat battle
GOP Rep. Don Bacon, who represents one of House Republicans' toughest battleground districts, has decided not to run for reelection next year, according to three people familiar with his plans – opening up a critical seat in Nebraska for Democrats in the 2026 midterms. Bacon will formally make the announcement next week, likely on Monday, those people said. Bacon did not return a immediate request for comment from CNN. The departure of the centrist Republican will be a major loss for House GOP leaders, who will need to hang onto every GOP seat to maintain their narrow majority in the upcoming midterms. But his decision does not come as a shock to many House Republicans, who believe the retired Air Force officer has been telegraphing his plans to leave Congress, including through his voting record. Bacon, who was first elected in 2016, has long been weighing whether to seek reelection, making little secret of his frustration with Washington. His victory last fall was seen as one of the biggest Republican surprises in the country, given that he outperformed Donald Trump and overcame stiff Republican headwinds in his Omaha-area district. The outspoken Nebraskan has been one of the few Republicans willing to challenge Trump on key decisions in his second term, particularly on foreign policy issues like Ukraine. Some privately believe he could seek a run for the presidency in 2028. House Democrats were already feeling upbeat about their chances of retaking the majority, which would only require flipping a handful of seats next November. The party's campaign officials point to the long-time historical trends that show new presidential administrations enduring steep losses in their first midterm – as Trump did during his first term in the 2018 wave. Some Republicans, too, privately fear a blue wave, but they also point to key factors in their favor, including redistricting battles in red states like Ohio that will easily favor the GOP. They also believe Trump's personal involvement in 2026 – including his fundraising – will be crucial to turning out his voters that largely sat out the 2018 midterm.


CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Key House GOP centrist will not seek reelection, opening up major swing seat battle
GOP Rep. Don Bacon, who represents one of House Republicans' toughest battleground districts, has decided not to run for reelection next year, according to three people familiar with his plans – opening up a critical seat in Nebraska for Democrats in the 2026 midterms. Bacon will formally make the announcement next week, likely on Monday, those people said. Bacon did not return a immediate request for comment from CNN. The departure of the centrist Republican will be a major loss for House GOP leaders, who will need to hang onto every GOP seat to maintain their narrow majority in the upcoming midterms. But his decision does not come as a shock to many House Republicans, who believe the retired Air Force officer has been telegraphing his plans to leave Congress, including through his voting record. Bacon, who was first elected in 2016, has long been weighing whether to seek reelection, making little secret of his frustration with Washington. His victory last fall was seen as one of the biggest Republican surprises in the country, given that he outperformed Donald Trump and overcame stiff Republican headwinds in his Omaha-area district. The outspoken Nebraskan has been one of the few Republicans willing to challenge Trump on key decisions in his second term, particularly on foreign policy issues like Ukraine. Some privately believe he could seek a run for the presidency in 2028. House Democrats were already feeling upbeat about their chances of retaking the majority, which would only require flipping a handful of seats next November. The party's campaign officials point to the long-time historical trends that show new presidential administrations enduring steep losses in their first midterm – as Trump did during his first term in the 2018 wave. Some Republicans, too, privately fear a blue wave, but they also point to key factors in their favor, including redistricting battles in red states like Ohio that will easily favor the GOP. They also believe Trump's personal involvement in 2026 – including his fundraising – will be crucial to turning out his voters that largely sat out the 2018 midterm.


Fox News
25 minutes ago
- Fox News
Authors blast 'harmful' SCOTUS ruling allowing parents to opt kids out of reading their LGBTQ+ books
Authors and illustrators of the controversial LGBTQ+ children's books at the center of Friday's Supreme Court ruling blasted the decision as "discriminatory and harmful" in a joint statement. The justices decided 6-3 in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can exclude their children from a Maryland public school system's lessons that contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel the material conflicts with their religious faith. The parents who brought the suit spanned a range of religious backgrounds, from Muslims to Christians of different denominations. The Maryland parents who sued said in their petition to the high court that the Montgomery County Public Schools board introduced books to their elementary school students that promoted "gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance." The parents said the school board initially allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons involving those books but then prevented opt-outs. They also said the presence of the books created "indirect pressure to forgo a religious practice," which created enough of a burden to violate their religious freedom rights. Authors and illustrators of the books mentioned in the court case responded in a scathing letter. "As the authors and illustrators of the books named in Mahmoud v. Taylor, we believe the Supreme Court's ruling today threatens students' access to diverse books and undermines teachers' efforts to create safe, inclusive classrooms. To treat children's books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful. This decision will inevitably lead to an increasingly hostile climate for LGBTQ+ students and families, and create a less welcoming environment for all students," they said. After arguing that such books not only make children feel more represented, but also teach children "how to share their classrooms and communities with people different from themselves," the group of authors and illustrators argued they are part of a far larger shift. "We know there are families and educators across the country who are committed to creating inclusive classrooms that meet the needs of the diverse groups of students in their school districts. We are with them in spirit as they work to ensure that all students are seen and supported," the group said. "We will continue to support LGBTQ+ families and children everywhere and advocate for the right of all students to read freely. We strongly disagree with the Court's decision." Education Department Secretary Linda McMahon celebrated the ruling as a win for "parental rights" and a loss for "bureaucrats." "Parents have the right to know what their children are learning at school and to exercise their First Amendment freedom of religion to opt out of divisive and ideological lessons that go against their families' values and beliefs," McMahon said. Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, the legal group that represented the parents' case, said, "This is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission. Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents—not government—have the final say in how their children are raised."