> With this US Supreme Court, I expect this New York Law will be overruled.
Why? Just because the court is conservative and this is a progressive law, or is there is an actual legal basis for the court to overturn this law?
Why? Just because the court is conservative and this is a progressive law, or is there is an actual legal basis for the court to overturn this law?
What's going on here is that the ISPs are essentially arguing contrary positions of law: to challenge the federal effort, they're arguing that the FCC has no authority to promulgate this kind of regulation; while to challenge the state efforts, they're arguing that the FCC's authority [that they're also arguing doesn't exist in the other case!] supersedes the state's authority.
FCC, or Congress?
The fight to preserve net neutrality rules was actually (and continues to be) a fight to preserve most of the FCC's ability to regulate ISPs at all [1]:
> On October 19, 2023, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to reclassify broadband internet access service (BIAS) as a Title II common carrier service and reinstate net neutrality rules.
...
> The FCC’s ability to adopt net neutrality rules depends on the legal classification of BIAS under the Communications Act of 1934 (“the Act”). As amended, the act defines two mutually exclusive categories of services: telecommunications services and information services. While telecommunications service providers are treated as highly regulated common carriers under Title II of the act, the FCC has much more limited regulatory authority over information service providers.
The FCC under Ajit Pai changed the classification of broadband providers from Title II ("information services") to Title I ("telecommunications services"). The FCC under Jessica Rosenworcel is trying to change broadband providers back to Title II, which (among other things, I assume) would allow the FCC to treat broadband providers as common carriers. The FCC might be able to regulate rates (meaning prices, not bandwidth) for internet service if ISPs are common carriers, but I'm not completely certain.
The 6th Circuit court case mentioned in the last section of the article is large ISPs' attempt to argue that the FCC has no authority to treat broadband providers as Title II services. Hence, the last section of the article is called
> FCC must show that broadband is telecommunications
The main court case of the article is about a New York state law which would regulate rates for internet service for low-income households. The FCC can't regulate rates without Title II authority. (Relying on the 10th Amendment, I assume) New York believes that the states have the authority to regulate ISPs in such a way (barring constitutional restrictions such as the Dormant Commerce Clause or the First Amendment). The large broadband providers are trying to petition the Supreme Court and argue that the FCC's Title I authority over broadband providers preempts states' attempts to regulate broadband providers in ways that the FCC would only be able to do with Title II authority. If the ISPs' argument prevails, the outcome would be that both the FCC and the states would lack authority to regulate rates on internet service, treat ISPs as common carriers, or impose net neutrality rules.
[1][PDF] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12513
The law is absurd and absolutely should be stuck down.
Corporations are not people, as much as some court decisions and politicians would like us to believe they are. A corporation's 5th amendment rights cannot be violated, because it does not have those rights.
Corporate charters are allowed to exist at the pleasure of the government.
The Affordable Care Act mechanism always struck me as one somewhat fair way to do it: the insurers set a price for a more-or-less well-defined product in a well-defined market. They compete with each other on that price, then the government achieves its desired social effects by subsidizing low-income insureds in proportion to that commercially-derived price.
Just saying “well, insurance is $5 now” seems less convincingly fair to the people doing the work to deliver the service. And rather less sustainable in the long run.
Lawyers make arguments. Judges make decisions.
The supreme court’s power isn’t checked. The justices have the final say on just about everything.
I'm not even sure if the court will rule at all, since unless I'm mixing up the way things work between different countries, the US Supreme Court gets to pick which cases it considers to be worth taking.
Not too mention the bribery that some members engage in and an unwillingness to abide by any ethical standards.
Then you read that certain members of SCOTUS want to abolish OSHA.
At some point you don’t get to claim to be nonpartisan when you rule by partisan lines.
when laws are made out of Congress, they can be struck down out of Congress. if it's important enough, ask your representatives and senators to turn it into a proper law.
It is a great political strategy tho. Use the courts to tell a do nothing Congress to pass legislation.
(Sir Humphrey)
I agree. The behavior that Justice Sotomayors staff have exhibited in regards to prodding public institutions to buy her books (a practice that has earned her over $3 million since she was appointed to the court) is downright shameful.
At least Congress has an independent nonpartisan ethics board.
It's very clear and obvious, regardless of your political affiliation, that this court:
1. is extremely conservative
2. plays fast and loose with precedent
3. has an originalist stance to the constitution, at least when convenient to conservative political stances
There're multiple landmark cases demonstrating this. To me, this isn't even a political opinion - it's just the clear and evident truth of how this court operates.