Presidential Removal Power and the FCC - II

 In my blog post published on February 14, I addressed how the FCC possibly could be impacted by the outcome of cases testing the Trump administration's power to remove the heads of agency officials. Please see that post for background information regarding the significance of the Seila Law case on a president's power to remove a member of a multimember agency like the FCC.

 

Now, I want to call attention to a case that is the first one involving a president's removal power in which the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to intervene. It involves President Trump's effort, on February 2, to remove Hampton Dellinger, as head of the Office of Special Counsel. Here are the essential facts as recounted by Amy Howe on SCOTUSblog:

 

Dellinger was appointed by then-President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term beginning in 2024. The watchdog agency protects whistleblowers inside the government, independent from the sitting president. It is not related to DOJ special counsels like Jack Smith. Under the federal law creating the Office of Special Counsel, Dellinger could be removed by the president from his job only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

 

So far, President Trump's attempted firing of Mr. Dellinger, for which he gave no reason at all, has been temporarily blocked by United States District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, and a D.C. Circuit panel, in a 2-1 decision, refused to lift the temporary restraining order (TRO).

 

On Sunday, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court asking it to vacate the TRO so that President Trump's firing of Mr. Dellinger will be effective immediately. SG Harris declares that "[t]his case involves an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers that warrants immediate relief." She claims that the president possesses "unrestricted power to remove" agency heads, so that "preventing him from exercising these powers thus inflicts the gravest of injuries on the Executive Branch and the separation of powers."

 

It is impossible to predict what the Supreme Court will do in response to the Trump administration's emergency application. And it's important to stress that however the Court responds, such response may itself be of a temporary nature and not resolve the merits of the case or provide a basis for predicting the case's ultimate disposition.

Nevertheless, this and other cases involving a president's removal power bear close attention by FCC watchers – and, of course, FCC commissioners. So, a few observations are in order:

1.     The SG's petition to the Supreme Court in the Dellinger case relies heavily on the Court's Seila Law decision, where, in dicta, the Court intimated that the seminal Humphrey's Executor case may no longer be sufficient to protect members of a multimember commission from removal by a president for any reason, especially if the agency exercises substantial executive power. In the her February 12 letter to Senator Dick Durbin to which I linked in my last post, the Acting Solicitor General makes clear that the Department of Justice no longer believes the tenure protection provisions contained in the FTC Act and similar statutes are constitutional. So, if this view ultimately prevails in the Supreme Court, a president's authority to remove an FCC commissioner without providing any reason would be assured.

2.     Even if the Court does not go "full Seila Law" and accept the Trump administration's claim to unrestricted removal power for multimember agencies such as the FTC, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, it may rely, at least to some extent, on the tenure protection provisions contained in these agencies' enabling statutes. In material respects, they mirror the “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” language contained in the Office of Special Counsel statute now before the Supreme Court. As I pointed out in my previous post, the Communications Act contains no such explicit tenure protection limitation language.

The fact that the Communications Act lacks a tenure protection provision similar to those contained in the FTC and other agency enabling statutes – a fact underreported and little considered – possibly could be significant if there is ever a case involving a president's attempt to remove an FCC commissioner. It's possible it could be determinative.

A FINAL NOTE: Please understand that I am not advocating the removal of any FCC commissioner. In that regard, observe that generally I refer to "a" president's removal power, not "the" president's removal power. But as someone who has practiced, and been involved in, communications law and policy for nearly fifty years, I'm very interested in following all the now fast-brewing cases involving a president's removal power for what they could portend for the FCC. If you follow the FCC, you should be interested too!

House Commerce Leaders Create Privacy Working Group

On February 12, 2025, House Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY) and Vice Chairman John Joyce, M.D. (R-PA) issued a press release announcing the formation of a comprehensive data privacy working group.

This marks the first notable federal legislative step forward on privacy since a full House Commerce Committee markup of the American Privacy Rights Act of 2024 (APRA), scheduled for June 27, 2024, was cancelled at the last minute. For more on the fate of the APRA, please see my year-end comprehensive recap of developments at both the federal and state levels, "2024 Data Privacy Legislative Review: Federal Lawmakers Fall Short As More State Laws Gain Teeth," a December 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars.

In the press release, Chairman Guthrie and Vice Chairman Joyce stated that:

We strongly believe that a national data privacy standard is necessary to protect Americans' rights online and maintain our country's global leadership in digital technologies, including artificial intelligence. That's why we are creating this working group, to bring members and stakeholders together to explore a framework for legislation that can get across the finish line…. The need for comprehensive data privacy is greater than ever, and we are hopeful that we can start building a strong coalition to address this important issue.

They also encouraged interested parties to engage with the working group by sending an email to PrivacyWorkingGroup@mail.house.gov.

Report Touts Positive Impact of Fiber Broadband on Local Economy

On February 7, the Fiber Broadband Association published a case study report, "Fiber Anchors Sustained Economic Development, Charlottesville, Virginia." The report examined the impact of fiber broadband network deployment on the greater Charlottesville area, focusing on three economic indicators: private sector job growth, housing value, and digital microbusiness density. According to the report: "Availability of high-speed, low-latency broadband accounted for roughly 35% of Charlottesville's private sector job growth during 2015-2019." The report also credits fiber deployment with increased housing values in the area. And it emphasized the benefits of fiber for "microbusinesses" that have 10 or fewer employees, a domain, and an active website. The findings of the report are based, at least in part, on a comparison of the economic activity of Charlottesville compared with similar-sized cities in Virginia.  

The economic benefits, including job creation, of next-generation broadband networks is also the subject of previous studies. For instance, other analysts have observed the positive economic impact from deployment of 4G and 5G wireless networks and 5G networks. 

 

Local communities hoping to timely realize the full potential of fiber networks for creating jobs and economic opportunities for their residents – similar to how Charlottesville, Virginia, appears to have benefitted – should have in place wireline infrastructure siting policies, including for access to public rights-of-way, that enable timely permit application processing, with permit fees that limited to covering review and processing costs. 

Presidential Removal Power and the FCC

By Randolph May

 

In Chapter 5 of the book of Daniel, it is reported that "when the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall," as King Belshazzar watched, "his face turned pale and he was so frightened that his legs became weak and his knees were knocking."

I don't know whether anyone's knees are knocking at FCC headquarters, but the handwriting may be on the wall – or in this case in the words contained in a February 12 letter from Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris to Senator Dick Durbin, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The first sentence declares: "I am writing to advise you that the Department of Justice has determined that certain for-cause removal restrictions that apply to members of multimember regulatory commissions are unconstitutional and that the Department will no longer defend their constitutionality." Solicitor General Harris states that DOJ specifically has determined that the statutory tenure protections for members of the FTC, National Labor Relations Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission are unconstitutional.

The Solicitor General then explains why she believes, in accord with the Supreme Court's current jurisprudence, her view is correct. She relies most heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Protection Bureau, where the Court held that CFPB's "for-cause" statutory tenure protection is unconstitutional. You should read the entire Seila Law opinion, but, for present purposes, the relevant point is the Court's dicta to the effect that the statutory tenure protection provisions applicable to multi-member agencies – here's looking at you FCC – may be constitutional only if such agencies "do not wield substantial executive power." The SG concludes that the FTC, NLRB, and CPSC all wield substantial executive power, so, therefore, any for-cause statutory restrictions on a president's removal power are unconstitutional.

 

I've addressed this question of the constitutionality of the president's removal power, in light of the seminal case of Humphrey's Executor v. FTC, for many years – well, decades – and I'm sure I'll continue to do so. My point here is to call attention to the SG's letter, and to offer these brief observations regarding what "the handwriting on the wall" may portend for the FCC.

First, in key respects, the FCC's structure as a multi-member agency and the powers it exercises are very much like those of the FTC, NLRB, and CPSC – a blend of legislative, executive, and judicial-like powers. For example, to take just one power, it's difficult to suggest that in carrying out its enforcement regime, the FCC does not wield substantial executive power. So, if the SG's view of the president's removal power regarding the three identified agencies is correct, it may be difficult to distinguish the FCC.

Second, unlike the statutes governing the FTC, NLRB, and CPSC, the Communications Act does not actually contain any "for-cause" limitation on presidential removal. The notion of the FCC as an "independent" agency is dependent on its multi-member composition, fixed and staggered terms, and bipartisanship requirement – in other words, on its structure. It's possible that, if put to the test, these structural features may be sufficient if the Supreme Court does not fully embrace Seila Law's implications. But I have my doubts, especially in light of the little noticed fact that the Communications Act contains no "for-cause" restriction on the president's removal power. That statutory omission could possibly make all the difference.

     

FCC's Nathan Simington a Keynoter at FSF's 17th Annual Policy Conference on March 25!

 

Registration Now Open!

 

New Keynote Speaker Announced!

 

Nathan Simington

 

Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission

 

Previously Announced Keynoters

 

Senator Ted Cruz

 

Jonathan Turley

 

WHAT: FSF's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference

 

WHERE: National Press Club, Washington, DC

 

WHEN: Tuesday, March 25, 2025

 

The Free State Foundation will hold its Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference on March 25, 2025, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. This annual conference is acknowledged to be one of the nation's premier law and policy events.

 

As always, a truly outstanding lineup of senior officials and prominent experts from the FCC and Congress, and from other government agencies, industry, academia, and think tanks will discuss and debate the most important communications and Internet policy issues of the day, as well as other topical law and policy issues involving free market competition, free speech, and the rule of law.

 

With a new Trump administration, a new Congress, and new leadership at the FCC, FTC, and other agencies, this promises to be one of the most impactful of FSF's annual conferences.

 

REGISTRATION IS COMPLIMENTARY, INCLUDING CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST AND LUNCH.

BUT YOU MUST REGISTER TO ATTEND.

REGISTER HERE!

 

#FSFConf17

Report Proposes Much-Needed Repairs to Beleaguered BEAD Program

The Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute (ACLP) at New York Law School today released a "BEAD Acceleration Checklist" that "offers … a series of straightforward recommendations for accelerating the award of BEAD grant funds [that] focus on freeing BEAD from its bureaucratic shackles."

Those of you who have been following the Free State Foundation's extensive scholarship on the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program – and, more broadly, the deeply flawed Biden Broadband Plan for which it serves as the centerpiece – will find familiar many of the fixes set forth in "How to Free BEAD From its Bureaucratic Shackles."

In a companion op-ed published by Broadband Breakfast, Michael Santorelli, Director of the ACLP and co-author (along with ACLP Senior Fellow Alex Karras) of the report blamed the Biden Administration for the BEAD Program's ongoing failure to bring broadband to even one unserved location, pointing the finger specifically at "excessive bureaucracy, regulatory overreach, and a misguided approach by the Biden administration, which prioritized its political agenda and program micromanagement over connecting people to broadband."

In the report itself, the co-authors urge the Trump Administration to make seven course corrections, which include:

• Eliminating all rules and requirements not expressly prescribed by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) – that is, the legislation that established the BEAD Program. In "NTIA's BEAD Program Needs Revisions to Succeed," an October 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, Michelle P. Connolly, Ph.D., a member of the Free State Foundation's Board of Academic Advisors and Professor of the Practice within the Economics Department at Duke University, identified five superfluous "subgrantee requirements" included in NTIA's Notice of Funding Opportunity: "Buy American" requirements, union labor-related mandates, middle-class "affordability," network management practice limitations (including data caps), and the unreasonable prioritization of municipal broadband.

• Prohibiting rate regulation. As I pointed out in "Virginia Flags NTIA's Impermissible Pressure to Regulate Broadband Rates," a February 2024 Perspectives, while the IIJA does require that grant recipients make available a "low-cost broadband service option," it also explicitly bans the regulation of rates. And as Free State Foundation President Randolph May argued in "Government Price Controls Jeopardize the BEAD Program's Success," a September 2024 Perspectives, attempts by NTIA and the states to require below-market rates amount to price caps, which "lead to suboptimal levels of supply" and undermine the "policy goal of achieving universal broadband access because experienced ISPs will be discourage from participating."

• Clarifying the role of low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites. In "BEAD Program Softens Stance on 'Alternative' Technologies," a January 2025 post to the FSF Blog, I explained that while revised NTIA guidance opened the door in certain extremely high-cost situations to "alternative technologies" – that is, LEO satellites and unlicensed spectrum – it fell well short of putting these distribution platforms on an equal footing with other "Reliable Broadband Service" options.

• Removing "extraneous requirements," including those referenced in the first bullet point above as well as those relating to climate change and other policy preferences, from NTIA's BEAD Program "Terms and Conditions."

• Prohibiting the states from imposing their own "extraneous" and "burdensome" requirements beyond that which the IIJA requires.

• Strongly encouraging states to prioritize public-private partnership applications involving established broadband service providers with a proven track record of success.

• Allowing states to adjust project-service areas so that they "align with the realities of broadband network deployment."

T-Mobile/UScellular Transaction Deserves a Timely Decision by the FCC

 On January 28, the public comment period closed in the FCC's review proceeding for the T-Mobile/UScellular transaction. The weight of available evidence indicates that the proposed acquisition by T-Mobile of 30% of UScellular's spectrum and its subscribers most likely would bring public benefits by making high-speed 5G mobile services and residential fixed wireless services available to more Americans. Given UScellular's small market share, the transaction is unlikely to cause any significant harm to competition or consumers. 

The FCC should decide on the proposed T-Mobile/UScellular deal well before the agency's 180-day shot clock for completing transaction reviews expires. The shot clock was intended to be the outside date by which agency reviews of transactions involving substantial concerns are to be finished – not the much shorter timeline in which most reviews, which do not raise substantial concerns, ought to be decided.

 

The backdrop to the proposed T-Mobile/UScellular transaction is today's "mobile telephony/broadband services" product market that is characterized by strong competition among nationwide mobile providers T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon, emergent nationwide provider EchoStar, and regional cable mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) Xfinity Mobile and Spectrum Mobile. Importantly, the "mobile telephony/broadband services" exist in a broader converged broadband marketplace wherein traditional mobile wireless face cross-platform competition from potentially substitutable fixed wireless (FWA), cable, fiber, and satellite services.  

 

To briefly recap the terms of the proposed transaction, T-Mobile would acquire UScellular's wireless operations, subscribers, and about 30% of its spectrum licenses for $4.4 billion. UScellular subscribers would gain access to T-Mobile's faster and more capacious 5G mobile wireless network. 

 

T-Mobile and UScellular apparently do not have an overlapping competitive presence in thirty-seven percent (37%) of the Cellular Marketing Areas (CMAs) implicated by the proposed deal. Also, on average, T-Mobile’s spectrum holdings are reportedly lower in UScellular's geographic territory than in other areas. Post-transaction, consumers in those overlap areas would still have a choice of three nationwide mobile wireless providers, and many would also have a choice among EchoStar’s 5G service and/or a cable MVNO.  

 

Moreover, petitions and replies filed in opposition to T-Mobile/UScellular do not raise any transaction-specific competitive concerns that would justify agency delay in making a decision.  Concerns about spectrum concentration expressed variously by CCIA, EchoStar, and RWA appear overstated because T-Mobile would only acquire 30% of UScellular's spectrum, and providers AT&T, Verizon, and EchoStar all have vast valuable spectrum holdings. Indeed, it appears the agency's spectrum screen for closer analytical scrutiny is not triggered in any CMA subject to the deal. 

 

Furthermore, claims or concerns raised by petitions and replies in the proceeding about data-roaming arrangements and employment-related matters do not appear to be tied to this specific transaction. Post-transaction, any aggrieved mobile provider can file complaints with the Commission for adjudication under the agency’s data roaming rules. Insofar as employment-related concerns are raised, they are more suitable for review by agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board.

 

Based on a review of the available record in light of competition principles, the proposed deal appears to offer public benefits without any harms that would outweigh them. The Commission should promptly act on the T-Mobile/UScellular proposal, without having the review delayed by matters that are unrelated to the transaction. 

 

P.S. On January 8, the Free State Foundation filed its Opposition to Petitions to Deny in the FCC's review proceeding for T-Mobile/UScellular.

Bill Would Fill the Gap in Copyright Protections for Music on AMFM Radio

On January 31, Sen. Marsha Blackburn filed the American Music Fairness Act. If it were to become law, the bill would secure full public performance rights in copyright owners' music sound recordings. The bill is backed by a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, including Senators Alex Padilla, Thom Tillis, and Corey Booker. An announcement for the bill states that Rep. Darrell Issa will be introducing companion legislation in the House. In the 119th Congress, both chambers should give the American Music Fairness Act the timely consideration it deserves. 

Copyright law contains a gap in its protection of the property rights of sound recording owners. Currently, terrestrial commercial AM/FM radio stations are allowed to broadcast copyrighted music sound recordings to attract listening audiences and earn money from airing ads around those recorded songs – all without obtaining a license or compensating the recordings' owners. 

 

The American Music Fairness Act would fix the issue. Under the Act, AM/FM stations would be required to pay royalties to owners of sound recordings – just like satellite radio and Internet radio stations pay public performance royalties to sound recording owners. 

 

Importantly, the American Music Fairness Act would set low, set flat royalty rates for smaller stations. For instance, the bill would establish a rate of $10 per year for non-profit and commercial stations that generate less than $100,000 in revenue each year. An annual rate of $500 would apply to stations that generate revenues over $100,000 but less than $1.5 million each year. 

 

Another merit of the Act is that it would enable sound recording owners to receive public performance royalties from foreign radio stations. The U.S.’s lack of full public performance rights has enabled foreign stations to lawfully withhold royalties from American copyright owners. But if the Act becomes law, foreign trade agreement provisions would kick in and compel those stations to finally pay American sound recording owners for the use of their copyrighted property. 

 

Previously, the American Music Fairness Act has been falsely attacked as a tax bill. In reality, the Act is a pro-property rights bill. No intellectually honest person can claim one private party's obligation to pay another private party for the use of private property is a government tax. Copyright royalties are not taxes. (The obvious differences between payments for the right to make copies, publicly display, or publicly perform another's copyrighted property and payments of taxes or fees to the government are addressed in more detail in my blog post from September 2022.) 

 

The American Music Fairness Act was introduced in both the House and Senate in prior Congresses, and the House Judiciary Committee passed it in December 2022. Sen. Blackburn and her colleagues deserve thanks for reintroducing the American Music Fairness Act in the 119th Congress and giving sound recording owners another chance at being fully secured in their rights. Hopefully, the Senate will take up the bill for due deliberation.

 

Additional background on the American Music Fairness Act can be found in my 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "American Music Fairness Act Would Secure Copyrights in Sound Recordings," as well as in my April 2021 Perspectives, "Congress Should Secure Full Copyright Protections for Music Sound Recordings."

Verizon/Frontier Merger Would Make Fiber and Fixed Wireless More Competitive

February 6 is the halfway point of the FCC's 180-day shot clock for the agency's review of the proposed Verizon/Frontier merger. The proposed transaction likely would strengthen broadband competition across Frontier’s service areas located across 25 states, enabling broader deployment of fiber and fixed wireless services, including bundled service plans. Verizon and Frontier serve separate geographic areas, so the merger would not cause any consumer to lose the choice of a competitor. As a result, the proposed Verizon/Frontier presents likely public benefits, and it does not appear to raise any significant potential anticompetitive concerns that would stand in the way of prompt approval.

The Commission should decide on the proposed merger well before the agency's shot clock expires. The agency's shot clock for completing transaction reviews was intended to be the outside date by which transaction reviews raising substantial concerns are completed – not the considerably shorter date by which most reviews, such as the Verizon/Frontier merger which do not raise substantial concerns, are approved.   

 

According to the parties' public interest statement, Frontier provides voice services and broadband services to approximately 3 million subscribers in urban, suburban, and rural areas across 25 states. Since it emerged from bankruptcy in April 2021, Frontier has prioritized fiber deployment and invested $4.1 billion in fiber facilities as part of a plan to reach 10 million locations by 2026. Although Frontier now has reached 7.2 million fiber locations and is on its way to achieving its 10 million goal, Frontier has amassed debts of $12 billion. Looming debt obligations will make it difficult for Frontier to obtain financing to expand its fiber connections beyond 10 million. Additionally, Frontier lacks wireless service offerings that would allow it to offer bundled service plans that could compete head-to-head with rival cable broadband providers that offer broadband, video, and wireless services. 

 

Under the proposed deal, Verizon Communications would acquire 100% of Frontier Communications, adding more than 2 million fiber subscribers to Verizon's 7+ million Fios subscribers. Verizon has a market capitalization of over 167 billion, and Verizon reported total operating revenues of $134.8 billion and free cash flow of $19.8 billion in 2024. Thus, Verizon has the financial resources to more cost-effectively retire Frontier’s debt than Frontier could on its own, with sufficient resources available to pay for fiber facility expansions that will increase connections beyond 10 million in Frontier's territories. Furthermore, Verizon will make its mobility and fixed in-home wireless broadband plans available to Frontier subscribers, including as bundled plans. In all, the merger would boost market competition in Frontier’s territories, creating a stronger challenge in those areas to incumbent cable broadband providers.

 

Notably, the Verizon/Frontier merger presents a potential public benefit for lower-income consumers. The transaction would result in the expansion of the Verizon Forward affordability program to Frontier's territories. Verizon Forward offers qualifying customers Fios service with 300 Mbps speeds at $20. It also offers fixed wireless 5G Home or LTE Home service for $20 for customers who qualify and subscribe to certain 5G mobile plans. 

Since Verizon and Frontier are not direct competitors for wireline services and Frontier does not offer wireless services, the parties are not direct competitors. Their wireline services operate in different geographic territories. As a result, consumers would not lose a choice of providers if the merger is approved. Indeed, there does not appear to be any significant concerns regarding anticompetitive conduct or consumer harm if the FCC approves the transaction. 

 

Moreover, comments filed in the FCC's proceeding by Communications Workers of America (CWA) addressing the purported use of contractors on construction projects by Frontier and comments filed by the Coalition for IP Network Transition regarding Verizon's and Frontier's migration from remnant legacy networks to IP-based networks involve allegations that are not specific to this particular transaction. Concerns raised in those comments are fitting for consideration, if at all, by other federal agencies or by the Commission in separate proceedings that apply to all providers in the communications marketplace. In short, there do not appear to be any issues raised by the proposed Verizon/Frontier merger that require the Commission's decision to be delayed or subject to conditions created by the agency. 

 

Indeed, now that the FCC has new leadership under Chairman Brendan Carr, the Commission should look to reform its merger review process to address prior bad agency transaction review practices: imposing conditions that are extraneous to the specific transaction under review, meant to extract concessions for the benefit of outside special interest groups, or that serve as a pretense for expanding the agency's jurisdiction beyond what Congress set by law. The Commission also should consider reforms that will prevent the agency from designating mergers or other transactions under review by the agency to its administrative law judge for a hearing and thereby put the matter into suspended animation and deny the parties a timely agency decision on the merits. 

 

In any event, the FCC should complete its review of the Verizon/Frontier merger well before the end of the 180-day shot clock. The shot clock should not become – and should never have intended to be – the routine date by which the agency commits to acting on transactions that do not raise substantial concerns. Decision-making delays are unjustifiable and can undermine the potential benefits of the proposed transaction and instead harm competition through lost economic opportunity costs and damage to the soon-to-be-acquired party's subscribership and finances while its future, unnecessarily, is kept on hold.   

Sen. Ted Cruz Announced as a Keynote Speaker! FSF's 17th Annual Policy Conference on March 25!

 Registration Now Open!

New Keynote Speaker Announced!

 

Senator Ted Cruz

 

Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

 

Previously Announced Keynoter

Jonathan Turley

 

WHAT: FSF's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference

 

WHERE: National Press Club, Washington, DC

 

WHEN: Tuesday, March 25, 2025

 

The Free State Foundation will hold its Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference on March 25, 2025, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. This annual conference is acknowledged to be one of the nation's premier law and policy events.

 

As always, a truly outstanding lineup of senior officials and prominent experts from the FCC and Congress, and from other government agencies, industry, academia, and think tanks will discuss and debate the most important communications and Internet policy issues of the day, as well as other topical law and policy issues involving free market competition, free speech, and the rule of law.

 

With a new Trump administration, a new Congress, and new leadership at the FCC, FTC, and other agencies, this promises to be one of the most impactful of FSF's annual conferences.

 

REGISTRATION IS COMPLIMENTARY, INCLUDING CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST AND LUNCH.

 

BUT YOU MUST REGISTER TO ATTEND.

REGISTER HERE!

 

#FSFConf17

In Podcast, Prof. Adam Mossoff Talks Founding Fathers and IP Rights

The January 6th episode of the IP Protection Matters podcast, "The Historical and Constitutional Foundations of Patent Protection," features an interview with Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. In addition to being a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and a Visiting Intellectual Property at the Heritage Foundation, Prof. Mossoff is a member of the Free State Foundation's Board of Academic Advisors.

In the podcast episode, Prof. Mossoff discusses the American Founding Fathers' views on intellectual property (IP) rights. As he explains, the Founders "saw intellectual property largely as the same type of property right that arose from the creation of any other type of property right" through their value-creative productive labors. The Founders recognized the importance of protecting intellectual labor and included the IP Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. 

 

Prof. Mossoff then discusses the historical significance of the Constitution's IP Clause, the significance of President George Washington and the First Congress, the differences between IP rights in the American constitutional order and monopolies under old English law, and the importance of IP protections for ensuring the marketability of IP. These basic principles of IP law apply to both copyrights and patents. The latter part of the interview focuses on contemporary patent reform issues. 

 

For an insightful take on IP rights by an excellent scholar, be sure to check out the IP Protection Matters podcast interview with Prof. Mossoff. And for a deeper dive, Prof. Mossoff has published several academic journal articles. 

 

The IP Protection Matters podcast is a project of the Center for Individual Freedom. 

 

P.S. Many of the key themes about the Founders and IP rights in America’s constitutional order that come up in the podcast interview are analyzed in a book that I co-authored with FSF President Randolph J. May, The Constitutional Foundations of Intellectual Property: A Natural Rights Perspective (Carolina Academic Press, 2015). 

Jonathan Turley Announced as a Keynote Speaker! FSF's 17th Annual Policy Conference on March 25!

Registration Now Open! First Keynote Speaker Announced! Jonathan Turley

Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, George Washington University Law School, and Fox News Media Contributor

 

Professor Turley is the author of the important timely new book, "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage."

 

WHAT: FSF's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference

 

WHERE: National Press Club, Washington, DC

 

WHEN: Tuesday, March 25, 2025

 

The Free State Foundation will hold its Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference on March 25, 2025, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. This annual conference is acknowledged to be one of the nation's premier law and policy events.

 

As always, a truly outstanding lineup of senior officials and prominent experts from the FCC and Congress, and from other government agencies, industry, academia, and think tanks will discuss and debate the most important communications and Internet policy issues of the day, as well as other topical law and policy issues involving free market competition, free speech, and the rule of law.

 

With a new Trump administration, a new Congress, and new leadership at the FCC, FTC, and other agencies, this promises to be one of the most impactful of FSF's annual conferences.

 

REGISTRATION IS COMPLIMENTARY, INCLUDING CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST AND LUNCH.

 

BUT YOU MUST REGISTER TO ATTEND.

REGISTER HERE!

 

#FSFConf17