Sheriffs and IPCS Provider File in Support of Prison Calling Challenge
The National Sheriffs’ Association and ViaPath, a provider of incarcerated people’s communications services (IPCS), separately filed in support of challenges to the FCC’s July order implementing the Martha Wright-Reed Act of 2022 (see 2501280053) in briefs filed this week at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The order reduces call rates for people in prisons while establishing interim rate caps for video calls (see 2407180039).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The FCC violated the act's “explicit requirement that it ‘shall consider’ the costs of necessary safety and security measures,” the sheriffs group asserted. The agency “improperly concluded that this statutory mandate did not require giving any ‘specific weight’ to such costs, effectively rendering Congress’s directive superfluous,” it said: “This interpretation contravenes both the canon against surplusage and clear congressional intent, as evidenced by statements from the [act's] sponsors emphasizing the preservation of correctional facilities’ ability to recover security costs.”
The sheriffs' brief called the order “arbitrary and capricious” and said it violated requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The FCC “refused to meaningfully analyze what constitutes a ‘necessary’ security measure while simultaneously adopting an impermissibly restrictive definition of necessity” and “failed to recognize that safety measures primarily benefit incarcerated persons by enabling IPCS access in the first place,” the group said: The FCC also dismissed evidence “that limiting cost recovery for security measures could reduce IPCS availability.”
ViaPath challenged the FCC’s decision to impose a prohibition on ancillary service charges when the order becomes effective, while staggering the remainder of the other rate-related reforms. All the FCC’s rate reforms “should be subject to the staggered implementation process designed by the FCC to accommodate the contract renegotiation and potential state law amendment process,” the company said: “Any other interpretation conflicts with the FCC’s treatment of ancillary service charges as rates, undermines the FCC’s stated rationale for adopting a staggered transition period, and creates operational difficulties for IPCS providers.”