Major Questions Doctrine Is a Major Obstacle to Net Neutrality Regulation

On September 20, attorneys Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. and Ian Heath Gershengorn published a white paper titled "Title II 'Net Neutrality' Broadband Rules Would Breach Major Questions Doctrine." The co-authors served respectively as former Solicitor General and Acting Solicitor General in the Obama Administration. The paper's co-authors are right in identifying the ascendant major questions doctrine as a major legal impediment to any future attempt by the FCC to re-impose Title II public utility-like regulations on broadband Internet access services. According to Messrs. Verrilli and Gershengorn:

The Supreme Court will surely consider the question whether to classify broadband as a Title II telecommunications service subject to common carrier regulation to be a “major question”—that is, one involving a matter of major economic and political significance… The statutory text on which the Commission proposes to hang its hat lacks the clear statement of authority that the Supreme Court demands. Nothing in Title II of the Communications Act itself or in any other statute gives the Commission the clear and unambiguous authority to classify broadband as a Title II telecommunications service subject to common carrier regulation, and the Commission cannot reasonably conclude otherwise. 

The paper's co-authors trace the Supreme Court's recent major questions decisions – including the June 2023 decision in Biden v. Nebraska and helpfully lays out the factors that the court uses to assess whether Congress provides "clear congressional authorization for agency action" on a matter of major economic and political significance. They provide straightforward analysis of relevant provisions in the Communications Act of 1934 as well as the Telecommunications Act of 1996, concluding that clear congressional authorization is lacking for prospective Title II regulation of broadband by the FCC. Additionally, the co-authors explain why the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in NCTA v. Brand X Services – which upheld the FCC's decision to classify broadband Internet services as a Title I "information service" and not as a Title II "telecommunications service" does not justify Title II reclassification but forecloses it. 

 

According to the paper's co-authors, with Title II amounting to a legal dead end for net neutrality regulation, other avenues should be preferred: 

Congress should enact legislation to resolve this issue once and for all. Absent that, the Commission could use its finite resources to pursue more legally defensible policy initiatives, such as adopting light-touch net neutrality rules under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, thereby avoiding Title II reclassification that would be inevitably doomed under the major questions doctrine.

The legal reasoning of Messrs. Verrilli and Gershengorn is persuasive that the FCC lacks statutory authority to impose Title II regulation on broadband Internet access services. And their paper is worthwhile reading. Both Congress and the FCC ought to carefully consider the points made in their paper. 

 

Aside from serious legal roadblocks to imposing Title II public utility-like regulation on broadband Internet services Free State Foundation President addressed policy reasons why such regulation would be a serious mistake in his Perspectives from FSF Scholars – originally published on September 21 as an op-ed in the Washington Examiner – "Reimposing Burdensome Net Neutrality Mandates Will Harm Consumers." And for additional legal background, see FSF President May's July 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "A Major Ruling on Major Questions."