US Appeals Court Blocks Biden Administration Effort To Restore Net Neutrality Rules (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0175818589
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/01/02/206258/us-appeals-court-blocks-biden-administration-effort-to-restore-net-neutrality-rules
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-appeals-court-blocks-biden-administration-net-neutrality-rules-2025-01-02/
> The decision is a blow to the outgoing Biden administration that had made restoring the open internet rules a priority. President Joe Biden signed a 2021 executive order encouraging the FCC to reinstate the rules.
>
> A three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the FCC lacked authority to reinstate the rules initially implemented in 2015 by the agency under Democratic former President Barack Obama, but then repealed by the commission in 2017 under Republican former President Donald Trump.
>
> The rules also forbid special arrangements in which ISPs give improved network speeds or access to favored users. The court cited the Supreme Court's June decision in a case known as Loper Bright to overturn a 1984 precedent that had given deference to government agencies in interpreting laws they administer, in the latest decision to curb the authority of federal agencies. "Applying Loper Bright means we can end the FCC's vacillations," the court ruled.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-appeals-court-blocks-biden-administration-net-neutrality-rules-2025-01-02/
[2] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/04/25/1948234/fcc-votes-to-restore-net-neutrality-rules
Re:It's the right move (Score:4, Interesting)
> Congress should make the rules, not the president. I think that's how it's supposed to work
The Congress created the FCC with the express purpose of creating communications law. What part of that don't you understand?
Would you rather have subject matter experts at the FCC making communications regulations, or idiots in Congress like Boebert and MTG making them?
Re: (Score:2)
Congress created the FCC to regulate radio and things that existed in 1934 and probably gave it some additional directly legislated authorities along the way.
I don't see why any of us should be happy or okay with it just deciding on its own that it can regulate activities that dont include some kind of radiated emissions. If congress wants the FCC to have the authority to regulated how routing and switching are done on closed, privately owned networks, than it can pass some specific legislation giving the
Re: (Score:3)
The FCC didn't stop being overseen by Congress in 1934, and Congressional committees overseeing Congress continue to operate and Congress continues to approve whoever runs it. If Congress wants to restrict the FCC or change its mandate or believes its exceeding its mandate, they have opportunities at the micro- and macro- level to do so.
Regardless, your argument only makes sense if you're proposing new legislation should be passed, with the FCC reformed or abolished, not to justify the courts deciding they
Re: (Score:2)
if you want to look at it that way the the 1934 act should be struck as unconstitutional and the entire FCC should be abolished by the court.
Congress does not have constitutional authority to create additional legislative bodies. If that is what the FCC directors are, than it is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
The power to regulate commerce is explicitly mentioned as one of the powers of government in the constitution. All I'm aware of saying that Congress can't do what has been done for the last nearly 200 years, having been previously upheld by prior Supreme Courts, is a dubious recent Supreme Court ruling... where the Supreme Court is a unelected bunch of explicitly unaccountable for life folks. This was, in my opinion, one of many recent dubious rulings, like "gratuities to government officials aren't bribes
Re: (Score:2)
What part of the constitution stops congress from delegating? As long as what they're delegating falls under the purview of the federal government they should be fine as there's nothing that I know of that forbids it. Congress still has ultimate say in regards to anything the bureaucracy does after all so they havent forfeited their responsibilities, they've just turned them over to experts they can override at any time because what the fuck does a congress person know about a lot of the stuff our governmen
Re: (Score:2)
Because the "additional directly legislated authority" includes wired communications as well. And the Supreme Court has upheld this. In 1965 for example, Supreme Court held that FCC had jursidiction over cable television (ie, not radio or wireless).
The recent Loper Bright ruling did not overturn existing case law or rulings regarding regulations, it did not retractively remove past Supreme Court decisions in this matter. Thus FCC _still_ has regulatory authority over cable television no matter what Boeber
Re: (Score:2)
> Congress created the FCC to regulate radio and things that existed in 1934...
If congress thought the FCC's mandate wasn't relevant or that they were doing something congress disagrees with they could pass a law overruling them or stripping them of their power. They didn't. That means they implicitly consent to the FCC regulating things that exist in 2025.
Re: (Score:2)
"If congress wants the FCC to have the authority to regulated how routing and switching are done..."
But net neutrality isn't about how routing and switching are done, it's about packets being routed and switched without prejudice.
If only congress would pass a law regulating bad faith arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Congress created the FCC with the express purpose of creating communications law. What part of that don't you understand?"
No. The FCC was created to enforce communications law, not create it. As for experts, this topic doesn't require experts to understand the underlying issues.
Re: (Score:2)
What are the underlying issues?
How do you feel about California's net neutrality law? Or are we not cheering for "states rights" on this one?
Re: (Score:2)
The topic of the law or enforcement of it, or understanding companies' behaviors doesn't require experts?
That is a courageously naive outlook.
So, who are we electing in congress or appointing in courts that understand this stuff enough to do /anything/ proper w.r.t. modern communications?
So every time anyone does anything (Score:2)
the right wing doesn't like their answer is "Congress should do X!"
This way the Republicans in Congress can stonewall anything they don't like.
I'm not convinced everyone doing these "Congress should do it!" posts understands that. A lot of times it's just something they picked up from Rush Limbaugh or whatever replaced him on AM Radio when he died. But that's the gist of why you see all these posts.
Re:It's the right move (Score:5, Informative)
Your title is wrong because you apparently didn't think through the implications before writing it.
Congress was just overruled by the courts. An agency created by Congress, whose directors are appointed with the approval of congress, which is overseen by Congress, was just told it couldn't do something because it hurt the judge's fee-fees.
That's what Loper Bright is. It allows courts to decide they, not Congress, have power over the Executive - not simply when constitutional questions arise, but on basic day-to-day operations. It's a power grab from the elected part of our government by the unelected, unaccountable, part. Literally nothing Congress does matters any more. There are no laws it can pass in any meaningful way that it can rely upon impacting anything, because the courts no longer need to come up with a constitutional question to invalidate the will of congress.
Loper Bright is insane, and another reason why SCOTUS needs to be reformed.
Re: (Score:2)
> Congress was just overruled by the courts. An agency created by Congress, whose directors are appointed with the approval of congress, which is overseen by Congress, was just told it couldn't do something because it hurt the judge's fee-fees.
It's not that straightforward.
Loper Bright ended Chevron Deference, which told courts to defer to agencies when Congress hadn't clearly taken a position, or clearly authorized the agencies to make the rules in question.
In the abstract, I think this is correct. Agencies should only do what they're authorized to do by Congress. That doesn't mean Congress has to make the detailed technical rules, but it means Congress needs to explicitly authorize the agency to evaluate the situation and make rules. That
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't have written it better. 100% Agreed.
Loper Bright vests in an unelected body of /explicitly/ unaccountable (for life) folks (literally because there is no precedent) unprecedented power over what legislators can do with laws/legislation.
Is the FCC pointless now? (Score:3)
If the FCC lacks authority to reinstate rules, logic dictates that the FCC also lacks authority to instate and enforce rules.
Re:Is the FCC pointless now? (Score:5, Insightful)
> If the FCC lacks authority to reinstate rules, logic dictates that the FCC also lacks authority to instate and enforce rules.
Yes. That was the point of the Loper ruling. Give the US to corporations to be bumfucked at will. Now implementation of any rule can be dragged by 10-15 years _easily_ by filing lawsuits and then stretching the time as much as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
The executive branch has the power to enforce the laws passed by congress, as written. Beyond that, they’re largely powerless.
Re:Is the FCC pointless now? (Score:4, Informative)
The "as written" has always meant that the agencies can interpret the instructions within the scope of their authority. Now they can't, unless the instructions are explicit.
Re: (Score:2)
> "The "as written" has always meant that the agencies can interpret the instructions within the scope of their authority. Now they can't, unless the instructions are explicit."
That isn't correct. They can't unless the *scope* of the mandate is more explicit and covers what they are trying to do. There is a big difference. The issue is that the agencies have been going way outside the scope because that scope hasn't been updated in eons and things change.
If Congress grants the FCC the scope to regulate
Loper Bright (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact they had to rely on Loper Bright - basically a precedent that says that courts can rule from the gut, they don't have to actually listen to the experts who were approved by Congress to look into these issues - says this is basically a political decision not a legal one.
We're in for a rough few decades until SCOTUS can be reformed.
Re: (Score:2)
> "they don't have to actually listen to the experts who were approved by Congress to look into these issues"
That isn't my understanding of what the court did. They essentially said the regulations have to fit within the scope of the agency's mandate. Has nothing to do with courts replacing so-called "experts." Congress can just authorize the FCC to have the power to regulate the speed and prioritization of ISP internet connections (which is expanding/defining the new scope). Then the "experts" at the
I'm not sure we can (Score:2)
Losing the voting rights act back in 2013 hurt way more than anyone's really realized. Wait times to vote on election Day in swing states were several hours with Pennsylvania in particular pushing 7 hours.
Politicians, specifically the ones on the right wing, are picking their voters instead of the other way around. Stalin was wrong. It's not about who counts the votes it's about who decides where working voting machines get sent to.
I think the Democrats thought that they were safe because everyone w
Legislating from the bench (Score:1)
What we now have is courts making laws. Wasn't this supposed to be a bad thing at one point in time?
Where's the doom and gloom? (Score:1)
I remember when people said we'd get "package" type deals from internet companies. That never happened. Can anyone point to anything that came as a result of removing "net neutrality" laws other than removing red tape? I'm genuinely asking. I'm down to grab my pitchfork, but I'm not sure what to get upset about. It's been six years. Before you jump down my throat, I'm not arguing against it. I'm just saying John Oliver promised that if net neutrality is removed streaming services and internet providers wou
Sand in the gears (Score:3, Interesting)
Not every decision can pass through legislative bodies. You have regulatory agencies that operate under broad mandates to create the narrow rules. ...or everything grinds to a halt. However, authoritarians don't like the indirect and inconvenient control this results in. What you'll end up with is a free for all with people guessing what might piss off whoever might be interested and in a position to push back, and acting on those secret rules instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Having the legislature (who don't know much about.. much of anything) be required to make all the rules is also not good. You often need actual experts to do that, and you better pray those experts aren't just lobbyists.
As with many things going for some ideal at either end of the spectrum is likely to result in lots of suckage.
Not that the legislature is particularly accountable in the first place, mind you, especially with gerrymandering giving you control over everything with as low as 30% of the vote (y
Re:Not just authoritarians! (Score:5, Insightful)
> Having unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats essentially make up new rules is a recipe for corruption.
You don't say... [1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/ [supremecourt.gov]
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/
Re: (Score:2)
Except that legislation does grant authority to define the specifics. Democratically, and according to the constitution. Republicans pass these lawa and approve of them. EXCEPT with Democrat administrations enact regulations, then suddenly they're opposed. It's just standard politics: it's good when we do it but bad when you do it.
In a country this big, you CANNOT have a system where the legislature must create every single minutiae of regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why we have fifty separate administrative districts, and may we should start acting like it more.
States should have more power, the federal government should be given less, an we should have more social and legal diversity among the states / regions than we do. Let their be a market place of ideas, and let people vote both in the ballot box and with their feet!
Re: (Score:2)
> The legislature should be the source of new law.
None this matters when our legislatures and our courts are corrupted by undue influences. Welcome to classism and economic slavery remember, the rich and the powerful control 'our' governments now, welcome to corporatocracy. It's too late now, the decline is upon us.
Re: (Score:2)
> The legislature should be the source of new law.
The legislature is an expert in nothing but law and therefore would be a fucking horrendous source of laws governing regulation. They barely understand basic economics let alone the kind of topics the FCC, FAA, FDA, etc are tasked with regulating. There's a reason to defer to experts, and there's a good reasons to leave experts be unelected bureaucrats and not judge them by a popularity contest.
Re:Sand in the gears (Score:4, Insightful)
We've seen the deregulated world before. Rivers that catch on fire from pollution, etc. Water that kills.
That world was much worse than today's world.
Regulation is always bad for someone. The question is /always/ does it create more good, i.e. driving the flywheel faster for everyone or not?
Too much regulation is a damper. Too little is a danger.
The biggest issue isn't the amount of regulation, or who does it-- it is that it takes too long to get anything done.
What we need is more efficient regulation (and I'd throw the courts in there too-- taking years to get /anything/ done is ludicrous).
That can come in the form of 'less' regulation, but it could also come in the form of limits to the amounts of delay that can happen because of regulations.
Re: (Score:3)
Union Carbide agrees with you. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
Re: (Score:1)
Its cute and kinda scary you think the people have any power right now
Re: (Score:2)
> Its cute and kinda scary you think the people have any power right now
Well... (very) rich people ...
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly, maybe StupidKendall is another Musk burner account
Re: (Score:2)
The legislatures who granted regulatory authority also have the ability to take it away. The legislature CAN say "you went to far." Except that the legislature these days is more about grandstanding than in getting stuff done...
Re: (Score:2)
Of course everything can bass thru legislative bodies. Nothing stops the FCC from writing up a suggested draft of internet regulations and year to year amendments to same and passing it over to a friendly congress critter to bring to the floor. The body can then vote to enact it AND importantly red-line or edit things their constituents find controversial.
The idea that we can't have a democratic body at least 'approve' administrative rules is the real authoritarianism! People insisting otherwise are neo-m
Re: (Score:2)
> Nothing stops the FCC from writing up a suggested draft of internet regulations and year to year amendments to same and passing it over to a friendly congress critter to bring to the floor
Have you seen our political process? A billion things will stop that.
Re: (Score:2)
Or.. corrupt it worse than the alternative(s) would have presented.
Re: (Score:2)
But the legislature has given this authority. It was not stolen away from the legislature. It is not in violation of the constitution. If regulations go too far, the legislature can revoke this authority in specific cases or revoke it broadly. The system works as designed, except that some loud politicians are so in favor of allowing industry to be lawless that they want to scrap all regulations.
Remember, without rules or guidelines, history has shown that industry will kill people if there is profit in
Re:Sand in the gears (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but nowadays in the US every decision has to pass through the legislative and judicial branches. Those “broad mandates” are totally gone. The Loper-Bright decision was *very* clearly worded. Actually, as far as I can tell, the idea of a “regulation” is now largely obsolete the US. There are laws required to be followed, but if an issue is not EXPLICITLY stated in a bill passed by congress, the executive branch has zero authority to do anything at all with it. I’m gonna guess that some huge percentage of our regulations are a single court case away from being invalidated.
There aren’t any federal laws on the books that use the words “net neutrality” or “greenhouse gasses” or “climate change”. I suspect the federal government is completely handcuffed on stuff like this.
Before the libertarians cheer too much, I doubt that the new fed has any real power over “PFAS in drinking water” or “bat guano in your hamburger” either. Enjoy those special toppings.
Before conservatives cheer that the supreme court is sticking it to Biden and the libs, you should realize that about 99% of Trump’s domestic agenda sits in the regulatory gray-zone which absolutely no longer exists. Every single thing that guy tries to do will get instantly bound up in court and the words “Loper-Bright, your honor” is all it’ll take to stop most of his initiatives.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
As it should be! I'd say I am Trump fan, but that does not mean I want him to be our King!
I want him to take a no-bias and no-bullshit approach to enforcing the laws on the books, and by no bias I mean facial/textual bias, not imaginary as in anything that begins with the word 'systemic'.
If when/he wants to do anything else I expect him to ask or at least arm twist congress into giving him the specific authority.
Re:Sand in the gears (Score:4, Funny)
> As it should be! I'd say I am Trump fan, but that does not mean I want him to be our King!
> I want him to take a no-bias and no-bullshit approach to enforcing the laws on the books, and by no bias I mean facial/textual bias, not imaginary as in anything that begins with the word 'systemic'.
> If when/he wants to do anything else I expect him to ask or at least arm twist congress into giving him the specific authority.
You're adorable. Would you like a pony with all that? :-)
Re: (Score:1)
But what you want is not what Trump did during his first administration, and appears to not be what he wants to do this time around either. Nothing says bias and bullshit like Trump. Enforcing laws on the books to him means pardoning the Jan 6th rioters), or having the DOJ go after his enemies and threatening to lock them up because of politics - this is political bias of favoring his supporters and disfavoring his opponents, and which also upends the rule of law. If he thinks this is quid pro quo becaus
Re: (Score:2)
> I doubt that the new fed has any real power over “PFAS in drinking water”
>> I want him to take a no-bias and no-bullshit approach to enforcing the laws on the books
You skipped the part where there AREN'T any laws on the books that expressly dictate things like how much PFAS is allowed in your drinking water. That's the whole point of the argument.
> As it should be!
How long are you willing to drink PFAS water while congress decides if there should be a limit and what that limit should be? Then once we have PFAS-in-water-limit figured out, optimistically sometime next decade, we can start on one of the other 1,000,000,000 bits of minutia that are involved with keeping our corporate overl
Re: (Score:2)
This is a misreading of the ruling, you've possibly listened to much to the uninformed Lauren Boebert who embarrassed herself in committee by assuming all regulations were to be overturned.
Congress has given departments the authority to make regulations as long as they stay within their granted charters. Regulatory bodies do not need to check each time for approval from congress because congress has already given approval!
The Loper Bright decision is about judicial review in decision making. It does not r
Re: (Score:2)
"Also the Loper Bright decision says that EXISTING rules and case law are to remain in effect! The decision is NOT retroactive!"
Sure, but that very decision makes a mockery of precedent, so saying case law remains in effect means nothing. The decision is basically that the courts no longer have respect for either expertise or precedent. That's what the decision is.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Loper-Bright decision was *very* clearly worded."
LOL. This decision is now "law" despite not being found in the constitution nor "passed through" the legislative branch. The irony.
Law now is dictated more by what Leonard Leo says that any agency, legislator or judge. Laws are dependent on which oligarch is paying.
"I suspect the federal government is completely handcuffed on stuff like this."
Or not handcuffed in the slightest, depending on what they want to do. You can sue, but federal judges don't
Re: (Score:2)
> Not every decision can pass through legislative bodies.
You've done nothing to demonstrate that this is true. Congress already passes thousand page bloated messes that no one has actually read so I don't see your assertion as being true. If an agency wants to crap out a thousand page policy bill for Congress to bicker over before passing or rejecting it, I have no objection to that, but it is the responsibility of our elected representatives (and not an unelected bureaucracy) to do that and they cannot abdicate that responsibility as much as they might want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the supreme court just decided that de facto [1]every decision must pass through legislative bodies. [scotusblog.com]
Which is gonna suck.
[1] https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good, congress debating the finer points of packet latency to the "series of tubes" guy.
Re: (Score:2)
> "Actually the supreme court just decided that de facto every decision must pass through legislative bodies. [scotusblog.com]"
Not really. It decided that these unelected commission bodies and agencies can't veer too far outside their clear mandates given to them by Congress. If Congress wants them to have more/different/changed abilities, they just have to define and approve those by updating the mandates/legislation.
This is clearly better than creating semi-autonomous beasts that then just do whatever
Re: (Score:2)
.. the thing that is weird about that is.. .. Congress /always/ had the power to change the laws, and the scope, responsibility and composition of the regulatory bodies.. and thus to direct the regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Right-wing, conflicted SCOTUS informed us last season that they want the courts, not experts, to decide these issues, especially because there aren't enough judges to manage it all, which means very little regulation will get implemented.