US EditionSupreme Court leans toward upholding federal internet subsidy program
- The Supreme Court showed support for an $8 billion subsidy aimed at expanding internet access in rural areas, despite a challenge against the funding's constitutionality from a conservative group claiming it violates separation of powers principles.
- Justices from both the conservative and liberal wings raised concerns that a ruling could disrupt the operational structures of federal agencies like the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
- The case arose from a Biden administration appeal following a ruling from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals that invalidated the funding mechanism, which was created to help low-income communities access telecommunications.
- Justice Elena Kagan emphasized that rural areas should receive services that urban areas take for granted, highlighting the need for universal access to telecommunications.
51 Articles
51 Articles
Commentary: Supreme Court Reconsiders Constitutionality of Agency Policymaking - The Wisconsin Daily Star
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case testing the limits of the nondelegation doctrine, an issue that may sound lawyerly, but which is of the utmost importance in ensuring separation among the federal branches and accountability for the important decisions that affect us all.
Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Tax on Telephone Service
The U.S. Supreme Court on March 26 considered whether it should uphold a lower court ruling that invalidated an $8-billion-a-year broadband subsidy for rural and low-income regions. The case is actually two cases—Federal Communications Commission (FCC) v. Consumers’ Research, and SHLB Coalition v. Consumers’ Research. On July 24, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Universal Service Fund was unconstitutional becau…
By John Fritze, CNN The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared sympathetic to a number of programs aimed at expanding high-speed internet in rural and poor communities, despite a challenge from a conservative group that alleges that funding for the initiative violates separation of powers principles. After nearly three hours of debate, several of the court's conservatives, along with all of its liberals, expressed concern about a ruling that could …
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 66% of the sources are Center
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
Ownership
To view ownership data please Upgrade to Vantage
