The Supreme Court has decided to take on a significant legal battle concerning the annual $8 billion federal government expenditure on subsidizing phone and internet services in schools, libraries, and rural areas. This move marks a crucial test of federal regulatory power in this domain.
The case revolves around the Universal Service Fund, which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) administers by collecting funds from telecommunications providers. These providers then pass on the costs to their customers. The legality of this funding mechanism was challenged by a conservative advocacy group, Consumer Research.
Previously, the Supreme Court had rejected two appeals from Consumer Research, as federal appeals courts had upheld the program. However, the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, known for its conservative stance, ruled 9-7 that the funding method is unconstitutional.
The Biden administration has appealed this ruling, but the case is not expected to be argued until late March. By that time, the Trump administration will be in office, and it remains uncertain whether their stance on the issue will differ.
The 5th Circuit's decision was based on the assertion that the funding mechanism violates the Constitution due to Congress delegating excessive authority to the FCC, which, in turn, has transferred significant power to a private entity.
The non-delegation doctrine, which allows the Supreme Court to strike down federal laws if they delegate too much authority to the executive branch, has not been invoked since 1935. However, some conservative justices have hinted at a willingness to revisit and potentially revive this legal doctrine.
