The Supreme Court has decided to engage in a significant legal dispute concerning the $8 billion annually allocated by the federal government to subsidize internet and phone services in various institutions, including schools and libraries, as well as in rural regions. This case represents a vital examination of federal regulatory authority.
The justices will be assessing an appellate decision that deemed the Universal Service Fund unconstitutional. This fund is financed through contributions from telecommunications companies, which subsequently transfer the costs to their consumers.
A conservative political organization known as Consumer Research has brought this challenge to light. Although the Supreme Court had previously rejected two appeals from Consumer Research after federal appellate courts had upheld the subsidy program, the increasingly conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately ruled in a split decision of 9-7 that the current funding structure violates constitutional principles.
In response to this ruling, the Biden administration has filed an appeal; however, the case is unlikely to be heard until late March, at which point the Trump administration will have taken office, raising questions about whether its stance on the issue will differ.
The 5th Circuit concluded that the means of financing is unconstitutional, claiming that Congress has overextended its authority by granting excessive power to the FCC, which in turn has delegated too much responsibility to a private organization.
The last instance in which the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the non-delegation doctrine to invalidate a federal law occurred in 1935. Nevertheless, several justices with conservative leanings have expressed an openness to rejuvenating this legal doctrine.
