The FCC should reverse course on its proposed $150,000 penalty against Mission Broadcasting (see 2401120069) in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on agency enforcement and Chevron deference, Mission said in a supplemental filing posted Tuesday in docket 22-443. The proposed penalty is from a January notice of apparent liability over accusations from Comcast that Mission violated the FCC’s rules on good faith retransmission consent negotiation by allowing Nexstar -- which operates all of Mission’s stations – to negotiate on Mission’s behalf for WPIX New York. “Just as courts should no longer defer to agency interpretations of statutes, neither should they defer to agency interpretations of regulation” after SCOTUS’ Loper Bright v. Raimondo decision, Mission said. The FCC’s NAL is based on “irrational interpretations” of FCC rules and precedent and the agency hasn’t shown that Mission’s violations were willful and continuous, Mission said. “Common sense demands that the presentation of a contract proposal is a ‘discrete act,’ not a continuing violation, and the NAL’s contrary reading of the statutory term is inconsistent with FCC and judicial precedent,” Mission said. Under the high court’s SEC v. Jarkesy ruling, the FCC’s proposed forfeiture would violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, Mission said. Jarkesy “confirms that the FCC’s enforcement regime suffers from constitutional deficiencies,” Mission said. Attorneys have widely predicted that the Loper Bright and Jarkesy decisions will be raised in nearly every FCC enforcement proceeding going forward (see 2407250030). Mission and Nexstar are also facing a second, $1.8 million NAL connected with Mission’s operation of WPIX (see 2403220067).
The ultimate makeup of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that hears the review of the FCC’s net neutrality order may not make much difference, some legal experts told us, in the wake of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. They doubted that the panel (docket 24-7000) will delve deeply into case law, instead simply deciding that going forward it's Congress, not the FCC, that must address any case that raises "major questions." Oral argument is scheduled for Oct. 31.
The FCC’s order on broadcasters' collection of workforce diversity data exceeds the agency’s authority, violates the First and Fifth Amendments, and runs afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling ending judicial deference to regulatory agencies, said a brief from the National Religious Broadcasters, the American Family Association and the Texas Association of Broadcasters. The groups filed the brief Wednesday in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The order’s requirement that broadcasters make their workforce diversity data available online is intended “to pressure broadcasters to engage in race- or sex-based hiring practices,” it said, concluding that the order “is fatally flawed in multiple respects and should be vacated.” The FCC didn’t comment.
Low-power television broadcasters and NAB don’t think the FCC should broadly apply online public file requirements to LPTV, said a host of reply comments filed in docket 24-147 by Monday’s deadline. LPTV commenters also called for looser relocation limits and power increase options. In addition, LPTV company Venture Technologies argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against Chevron deference means the FCC must allow more stations to convert to Class A status. “We believe that the FCC’s failure to allow virtually any new Class A stations for more than two decades is inconsistent with the principles established by the recent Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo,” Venture said.
ASPEN -- The president should have broad discretion without interference from Congress to remove commissioners at independent agencies when they commit offenses the White House deems "fireable," FTC Commissioner Andrew Ferguson said Tuesday.
House Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Ted Cruz of Texas and six other top GOP lawmakers urged the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday to strike down the FCC’s April net neutrality rules and reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service (see 2408140043). FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel separately told Rodgers, Cruz and other Republican lawmakers she remains “confident that the Commission’s rules and decisions will withstand judicial review under the [U.S.] Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and other applicable precedent.”
As industry looks beyond the Biden administration (see 2408130062), the FCC could have some busy months ahead of it. A pair of commissioner meetings is scheduled before the November elections, with at least two more before the inauguration of the next president. While past commissions have focused on less controversial items ahead of a presidential contest, which likely won’t be the case this year, industry officials say. Vice President Kamala Harris has emerged as the slight front-runner for the presidency since President Joe Biden left the race based on most recent polls, although the election is expected to be tight.
Don’t expect major daylight between a Kamala Harris administration and the Joe Biden White House on major communications policy issues, industry and policy experts predicted. Much focus and effort would center on defending the FCC's net neutrality and digital discrimination orders in the current federal circuit court challenges, as well as pursuing net neutrality rules, they said. Less clear would be the nature of the relationship between Harris' White House and Big Tech. The Harris campaign didn't comment. Deregulation and undoing net neutrality are considered high on the to-do list for the administration of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump if he's elected (see 2407110034).
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on agency enforcement actions to the FCC’s $518,000 forfeiture order against Gray Television, as well as SCOTUS’ ruling against Chevron deference, Gray said in a motion and supplemental reply brief Wednesday. The court previously ordered that the FCC and Gray file briefs weighing in on the application of the high court’s Loper Bright ruling against Chevron deference but didn’t do so for SEC v. Jarkesy, which is seen as potentially requiring jury trials for many agency enforcement actions. Jarkesy “raises the fundamental question of whether the FCC had the authority in the first place to conduct the proceeding that led to the forfeiture the FCC asks the Court to uphold,” Gray said in a motion. “Under these circumstances, Gray proposes as the most prudent course of action supplemental briefing on whether Jarkesy invalidates the FCC’s Forfeiture Order.” If the 11th Circuit were to find that the FCC’s claim against Gray is similar to the SEC forfeiture in Jarkesy, “then not only did Gray have the right to a jury trial, but also the Seventh Amendment prohibited Congress from assigning adjudication of the claim to the FCC,” Gray said. The court must also consider whether the FCC has statutory authority over Gray’s purchase of a network affiliation under Loper Bright, Gray Television said in a supplemental reply brief Wednesday. The FCC had argued that the court shouldn’t take up the agency’s authority because it was outside the scope of the supplemental briefs the court ordered (see 2408080052) and wasn’t previously raised in the proceeding by Gray. The Loper Bright opinion instructs courts to first determine the boundaries of an agency’s authority before ruling on whether an agency has engaged in “reasoned decision-making” within that authority, Gray said. The FCC also raised the issue of its statutory authority by discussing it in the forfeiture order it issued against Gray, Wednesday’s filing said. The Loper Bright decision “commands” that federal courts “must review all questions of law without deference to the agency whose action is under review,” Gray said.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (see 2406280043) doesn’t foreclose the FCC's ability to act on net neutrality and other important public issues, Stephanie Joyce, senior vice president-chief of staff at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, said during a Broadband Breakfast webinar Wednesday.