Supreme Court Sides With Trump Administration On Federal Regulation of Telecom Companies (apnews.com)
- Reference: 0183601718
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/06/04/1722208/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-federal-regulation-of-telecom-companies
- Source link: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-att-verizon-location-data-fcc-c0d184c82a104d653c8f1452357f68bd
> The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Thursday in [1]upholding the power of federal regulators to enforce data privacy laws on telecommunications companies . The [2]8-1 decision (PDF) preserved one of the Federal Communications Commission's key tools, though the companies also won a concession from the Republican administration that could shift the regulatory landscape.
>
> The appeal from telecommunications giants Verizon and AT&T challenged a combined $100 million in penalties imposed after the agency determined that the companies had failed to safeguard customer location data. The companies argued that the FCC's process was unconstitutional because it gave them little opportunity to tell their side of the story in front of a jury. The administration defended the fines are an essential regulatory tool. But the government also said companies did not have to pay the penalties right away, a regulatory shift in the companies' favor.
>
> The Supreme Court agreed, affirming the FCC's power to order fines when challenges are still available. "The orders at issue did not settle the carriers' legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. [...] Other agencies use similar enforcement methods, so a sweeping victory for AT&T and Verizon could have had widespread effects, advocates said.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-att-verizon-location-data-fcc-c0d184c82a104d653c8f1452357f68bd
[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-406_nmip.pdf
The Federal Government is taking after California (Score:1)
One party controls all three branches of government.
Re:The Federal Government is taking after Californ (Score:4, Insightful)
What does this ruling have to do with parties? A democratic administration would have sought the same end.
Re:The Federal Government is taking after Californ (Score:5, Informative)
Pot, meet kettle. And, by the way, you people do it more often. As per usual, an accusation, coming from a maga, is in reality a confession.
There are 39 U.S. states where a single political party holds "trifecta" control, meaning one party holds the governorship as well as majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. (Ballotpedia)
23 States have Republican trifectas.
16 States have Democratic trifectas.
Here is the breakdown by political party:
Republican Trifectas (23)
South: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia
Midwest & Plains: Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming
West: Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Utah
Democratic Trifectas (16)
Northeast: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont
West: California, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington
Midwest: Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota
(Ballotpedia)
Re: (Score:3)
coming from a maga,
HA! Most people accuse me of being a New England liberal!
Re: (Score:1)
Pedantic correction: Nebraska has a unicameral legislature thus cannot be a trifecta. Also how does Ohio fit in West?
Re: (Score:2)
Adding: As of 2026, Democrats now have a trifecta in Virginia.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. [1]The republicans control the courts there [state.va.us]; to the point of discarding and disregarding the will and votes of the people entirely. So while neither party technically has that "trifecta" in Virginia, maga controls the state and agenda in Virginia.
[1] https://www.oag.state.va.us/media-center/news-releases/3022-attorney-general-jay-jones-statement-regarding-supreme-court-of-virginia-decision-in-redistricting-case
Re: (Score:2)
> Nope. [1]The republicans control the courts there [state.va.us]; to the point of discarding and disregarding the will and votes of the people entirely. So while neither party technically has that "trifecta" in Virginia, maga controls the state and agenda in Virginia.
I get what you're saying but your post didn't mention the Judiciary, just the Executive and Legislative:
> There are 39 U.S. states where a single political party holds "trifecta" control, meaning one party holds the governorship as well as majorities in both chambers of the state legislature.
[1] https://www.oag.state.va.us/media-center/news-releases/3022-attorney-general-jay-jones-statement-regarding-supreme-court-of-virginia-decision-in-redistricting-case
Re:The Federal Government is taking after Californ (Score:4, Informative)
An 8 - 1 ruling is hardly the place to be complaining about partisanship...
Re: (Score:1)
I seem to remember during the Obama administration the issue of private data sharing came up and republicans in congress said it was an example of overstep by the executive branch ? Then brought a case of data sharing in front of congress? Did this happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing happening in the world today other than talking about Hunter Biden? Must be a really slow news day.
Re: (Score:2)
at least "burn rate" means that money is being spent rather than stolen, money authorized by congress. and who has forgotten how the previous adminstration spent money to generate the world's best recovery from COVID, in contrast to this President's worst response to COVID in the world, or this President's wholesale destruction of the economy he inherited.
Re: (Score:2)
I know... can't stand those affordable eggs (around here, $1.29).
And, the COVID recovery rate differences may have had a lot more to do with the theories about microchips and how it'll make you sick and all those theories, and mutation rates of the virus outpacing the vaccine research, and less to do with who was the Butt In Chair.
"at least "burn rate" means that money is being spent rather than stolen" = Who says it's actually going towards anything of any value? They are, of course, politicians, and ther
8-1 decision (Score:4, Informative)
For the TL;DR crowd. Clarence Thomas was the single dissent.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It's clearly unconstitutional (like 90% of what the Federal government does) so obviously only Thomas would dissent.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It takes a highly-trained legal mind to see that although the Founders only gave the Feds very limited powers they included a sneaky "unless it crosses state lines" exception which allows the Feds to do whatever they want.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what your argument is. Thomas is allowed to be wrong sometimes, like in this case he's clearly in the wrong as the lone dissenter. Congress long advocated these powers to executive agencies. So it is constitutional. Congress could dismantle the FCC and limit its powers anytime it wants. It won't because those idiots can never agree on anything.
The fines don't stop a jury trial. The telocos can just not pay them and be taken to court; arguing their case before a jury. They know they'd lose, s
Re: (Score:2)
> Congress long advocated these powers to executive agencies.
Congress doesn't have these powers. Except to someone with a highly-trained legal mind which hallucinates all kinds of nonsense from very clear legal documents like the Constitution.
It was literally written as a four page document. It's really hard to find these powers in such a tiny document without decades of legal training.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress doesn't have these powers.
Yes, they do. Had you ever read the discussions in the Senate about the amendments, you would have known this very subject came up. Unfortunately, his orange lardness has hidden from public view those historical records, so what I'm about to say goes from my memory.
Essentially, if Congress has the power to enact laws affecting the country, it is up to the Executive and Judicial branches to curb that power. Madison, despite opposition to the General Welfare Claus
Re: (Score:2)
> It would be inconceivable for Congress to be involved with the minutae of the country, to discuss and debate whether this or that is allowed. Instead, as granted by the Constitution, everything else is left to the people whose day to day lives are composed of the minutiae and have close-at-hand state governments to enact their will. Thus securing for posterity the blessings of liberty where different groups of people (states) have the freedom to do different things and leave each other alone, coming together to pool their power at the federal level only for true top-level existential issues like war. Because the most unfree undemocratic form of government is one in which a completely insulated isolated in-group of overlords 1100 miles away is governing your daily life. If that's how it's gonna be, there was no point in overthrowing monarchic feudalism.
FIFY.
Re: (Score:3)
Verizon and AT&T should have offered the other justices interest-free loans to buy an RV. Really a huge slip up for these large corporations to not have used the levers they had available to them.
Re: (Score:2)
They already got "Justice" Thomas dissenting.
The other "conservative Justices" prefer private jet trips to private enclaves to have ridiculously expensive wines and caviar with benefactor billionaires who want influence.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine everyone's shock and surprise.
rulings (Score:2)
One ruling for Donald Trump... One ruling for Americans... One more ruling for Donald Trump.. and one more ruling for Americans...
Re: (Score:2)
And, how would Buddy Harris have handled this?
Case was about Jarkesy not the underlying offenses (Score:5, Informative)
The primary question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the administrative enforcement and forfeiture provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 violate the Seventh Amendment and Article III of the Constitution by allowing the FCC to impose steep monetary penalties without guaranteeing the defendant a right to a jury trial.
The FCC fined ATT and Verizon for illegally sharing location data. The companies said this was not permitted because Jarkesy required a jury trial.
The majority distinguished the FCC's process from the unconstitutional SEC framework struck down in Jarkesy. Because the Communications Act leaves the ultimate mechanism of forced collection up to a subsequent federal court proceeding—where a jury trial remains available if a carrier refuses to pay—the preliminary administrative fact-finding by the FCC is a constitutionally permissible mechanism.
The 2 companies can refuse to pay the fines. The FCC could then take them to court where a trial would decide.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump could not cure cancer, both because he is a moron and a sociopath. The hypothetical is absurd, it relies on an assumption that, if true, would entirely change everyone's opinion about the rapist and child molester, including yours.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting, then, that after reading these comments I have noticed not "ORANGE MAN BAD" comments or defense of telecoms. It's almost as if this is a YOU problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what telecoms can collect (and et cetera) and do with that data is _all_ disclosed in the TOS and EULA... the famous 'fine print'.
Same for your OS, internet, cable TV, every single website you are a member of or even browse.
Your data = $$$, and the big companies want more, More, MORE!
Missing meaning from summary (Score:2)
"No obligation to pay” having the meaning that they could be fined but not pay, and instead take it to federal court in front of a jury . The argument by the telecos was that their reputations were harmed by just being accused of wrongdoing before it made it to court, which only Thomas agreed with.
This is a little different than what a layman reading might imply of the fine being optional or just "delayed".
Re: (Score:2)
Boo fucking hoo.
Don't sell people's private data, and you don't have to deal with the reputational damage that comes with selling people's private data.
That reputational damage would have occurred whether the FCC disclosed their behavior through regulatory filings and fines, or someone just wrote a story in ${PRESS_PUBLICATION}. And it's truthful behavior - they actually did the thing being said.
Fuck your "reputational harm" for doing exactly what is being said you are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
See [1]https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]
You joined AT&T as a customer, what they do with your info is outlined in freely accessible documents from AT&T :-)
If you didn't read those documents, that's on you.
[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=24009934&cid=66175814
The Burdensome Bill..on our Rights. (Score:2)
> The appeal from telecommunications giants Verizon and AT&T challenged a combined $100 million in penalties imposed after the agency determined that the companies had failed to safeguard customer location data.
When we say failed to safeguard, do we perhaps mean to include all those times a random three-letter Federal entity came marching into a civilian communications company to give a nice reach-around the Fourth Amendment in order to access data normally prohibited by the US Constitution for every valid reason?
Asking for a Founding Father who's up to 275RPM in the grave..
No way! (Score:1)
You're shitting me.