Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rejects Industry Challenge of 2015 Net Neutrality Rules (arstechnica.com)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused a request by the Trump administration and the telecommunications industry to wipe away a lower court decision that had upheld Obama-era net neutrality rules aimed at ensuring a free and open internet. The justices' action, however, does not undo the 2017 repeal of the policy. A report adds: The Federal Communications Commission's 2015 order to impose net neutrality rules and strictly regulate broadband was already reversed by Trump's pick for FCC chairman, Ajit Pai. But AT&T and broadband industry lobby groups were still trying to overturn court decisions that upheld the FCC order. A win for the broadband industry could have prevented future administrations from imposing a similarly strict set of rules. The Trump administration supported the industry's case, asking the US Supreme Court to vacate the Obama-era ruling.
But the Supreme Court today said it has denied petitions filed by AT&T and broadband lobby groups NCTA, CTIA, USTelecom, and the American Cable Association. Four of nine justices must agree to hear a case, but only three voted to grant the petitions. Further reading: Reuters and Variety.
But the Supreme Court today said it has denied petitions filed by AT&T and broadband lobby groups NCTA, CTIA, USTelecom, and the American Cable Association. Four of nine justices must agree to hear a case, but only three voted to grant the petitions. Further reading: Reuters and Variety.
tl;dr
The courts said the government had the power to enact Net Neutrality through the FCC (without an actual law). Now that never got argued up through to the supreme court yet and the attempt here was to get the SC to decide one way or the other but the SC declined because the issue no longer applies as the FCC reversed direction (which is typical for the FCC).
It's a nothing burger.
No. But nor is it beyond the reach of the FCC to add it (again), which was the point of this ruling.
There was no "ruling". The SCOTUS simply declined to hear the case. This lets the lower court decision stand, but sets no precedent. The lower court decision only has precedent in the DC circuit.
The SCOTUS can only hear a limited number of cases each year, and they likely declined to hear this case since it is pointless because the regulation in question has already been repealed.
Does this mean that we will keep Net Neutrality in place? Does it mean nothing? Does it mean that we may be able to repeal the FCC rules that overturned net neutrality under the heavily bribed and set for life because of industrial lobbying and then congressional appointment staff person known as Ajit Pal?
It means nothing really. It has zero impact on anything about NN, it doesn't force the FCC to enforce NN, undo the repeal or affect any future regulations the FCC may or may not choose to enforce in the future. About the ONLY thing I can imagine this does is give us a pretty good picture of how the SC would chose to not be involved in other such cases. 6 to 3 is pretty open and shut.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Justice Roberts and Kavenaugh recused themselves. That's the only reason that there were not enough votes (4 required) to hear the appeal from the DC Circuit. No guarantee they will recuse themselves again in the future.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition