The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling Friday that likely means less certainty for FCC actions and those of other federal agencies under the Hobbs Act. The decision comes a year after SCOTUS overruled the Chevron doctrine, which had required courts to give deference to agency decisions, in the Loper Bright case (see 2406280043). The latest from the court was Friday's 6-3 decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson, a much-watched case on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (see 2506200011).
In a 6-3 ruling Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a key Telephone Consumer Protection Act case that lower courts aren’t bound by FCC and other agency decisions. The Hobbs Act gives the appeals courts general jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend or determine the validity of some agency orders, including most FCC orders, according to the decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson. Major telecom trade groups have urged SCOTUS to reject arguments that a lower court can review an FCC decision, saying industry needs the certainty provided by the Hobbs Act (see 2412260037).
The FCC and DOJ on Thursday asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reject challenges to the FCC’s July order implementing the Martha Wright-Reed Act of 2022, which reduces call rates for people in prisons while establishing interim rate caps for video calls (see 2407180039). The government said the order addresses the monopoly power of incarcerated persons communications services (IPCS) providers to set calling rates.
Former FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington's suggestion that streaming platforms be subject to MVPD-like regulation (see 2505270054) lacks statutory justification and is the wrong approach from a competition policy standpoint, Free State Foundation wrote Monday. It argued that the better way to put virtual MVPDs on the same regulatory footing as traditional MVPDs is to roll back rules governing satellite and cable TV. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision, it's likely that federal courts would determine that the federal law governing the FCC's authority over MVPDs doesn't extend to virtual MVPDs, the group said.
FCC commissioners may end up deciding on a single item at their June 26 meeting -- text telephone-based telecom relay service rules -- the only NPRM teed up for a vote (see 2506050056). The other items, addressing cable regulation and broadband data collection, may likely wait until the Senate confirms Olivia Trusty and restores a quorum lost with the departures of Commissioners Nathan Simington and Geoffrey Starks. The situation raises interesting issues for Chairman Brendan Carr and Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez, officials noted.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s announced plan to forgo notice-and-comment procedures when rescinding rules could run afoul of administrative law, some experts said. Carr said the agency may look to the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) good-cause exception to notice-and-comment requirements in its efforts to remove no-longer-enforced rules (see 2505160064). An April White House memorandum said notice and comment aren't required when eliminating rules that it contends run counter to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Loper Bright. FCC Chief of Staff Scott Delacourt said the commission might employ declaratory rulings as a way of eliminating what Carr determines are invalid rules.
FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez said Friday at a policy forum that removing all minority-party commissioners would weaken the agency’s ability to defend its rules in court. “The Communications Act doesn't just require three commissioners for quorum,” she told the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Tech Freedom audience. “It requires that there will be one member of a minority party, and that, in and of itself, could weaken whatever defense that a future FCC may have if there is no such single minority party member.” The agency also wouldn’t be able to present evidence that it had considered dissenting opinions, making it harder for a one-party FCC to present itself as an expert agency, said Gomez and Tech Freedom President Berin Szoka.
Some FCC rules targeted for the deregulatory ax under the agency’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding were defended in reply comments, according to filings this week in docket 25-133, where replies were due Monday. The proceeding saw legions of initial commenters mentioning regulations from all corners of the communications regulation sphere (see 2504140063, 2504140046 and 2504140037). Replies were similarly active and far-reaching.
Gray Media wants the full 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to rehear its legal challenge against a $518,283 forfeiture, the company said Monday in a petition for rehearing en banc, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and the 5th Circuit’s recent ruling against the FCC over a penalty assessed against AT&T (see 2504180021). Last month, the 11th Circuit upheld the FCC’s forfeiture order against Gray over a violation of ownership rules (see 2503070004) but vacated the penalty because the agency didn’t adequately provide notice that the violation was “egregious.”
A federal appellate court's rejection of a $57 million FCC fine -- calling it unconstitutional -- could force the agency to revisit and overhaul its enforcement processes. The agency clearly has authority to enforce laws requiring telecommunications companies to protect sensitive customer data, but the FCC "must do so consistent with our Constitution’s guarantees of an Article III decisionmaker and a jury trial," a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week as it vacated the fine against AT&T that stemmed from handling of customer data. T-Mobile and Verizon are challenging similar fines levied in the same April 2024 enforcement action. In siding with AT&T, the court said it was guided by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2024 Jarkesy decision regarding whether federal regulatory agencies can bring in-house proceedings to enforce civil penalties.