TMT with Mike O'Rielly – Ep 22: Pending SCOTUS Decision on USF

Episode 22 of "TMT with Mike O'Rielly," a videocast featuring former FCC Commissioner and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Free State Foundation Michael O'Rielly, was released on June. In this episode, titled "The Pending U.S. Supreme Court Decision on the Universal Service Fund," Mr. O'Rielly has a conversation with guest Tim Donovan, President and CEO of the Competitive Carrier Association (CCA). Their conversation addresses issues involving the much-anticipated ruling by the Supreme Court in FCC v. Consumers' Research. Streaming video of the episode is now available:

PRESS RELEASE: The FCC's Public Interest Authority Is Not a Blank Check!

Regarding the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision issued today in Texas Association of Broadcasters v. FCC, Free State Foundation President Randolph May issued the following statement:

“For at least two decades now, in this law review article and otherwise, I have been urging the FCC, as a matter of bureaucratic self-restraint and regulatory modesty, to construe the congressional delegation of public interest authority narrowly. The Fifth Circuit’s decision holding that the FCC lacks authority under the 'public interest' standard to require broadcasters to collect and disclose, on a broadcaster-identifiable basis, certain employment data, including that based on race and gender, should be a cautionary tale. In holding the FCC’s regulation unlawful, the Court declared that 'the FCC’s authority to act in the ‘public interest' does not extend outside of the statutorily prescribed tasks that Congress has instructed the FCC to carry out.'

With a standard as concededly amorphous as 'the public interest,' regulators will always be tempted to deploy the delegation as a sword, as they were in this case. While Democrat FCC commissioners surely have been far more prone in the past to take an overly expansive view of the agency’s public interest authority, the temptation exists regardless of party. It should be resisted.

Here what I said in the Conclusion to my 2008 law review article:

With convergence and competition in the communications marketplace a reality, it is indeed time to revisit the application of the public interest standard. Whatever the merits of regulation under the indeterminate standard in the earlier, more monopolistic analog age (and I have serious doubts), the exercise of such unbridled and malleable discretion by the FCC is no longer appropriate in today’s digital environment. Assessments of marketplace competition primarily should guide the Commission’s regulatory decisions. Absent Congress’s or the courts’ narrowing the agency’s public interest authority, which is unlikely, the Commission, uncharacteristically, should heed my modest plea for regulatory modesty. In an exercise of self-restraint, the FCC should commit itself to narrowing the application of its public interest authority."

 

2025 Will Be a Big Year for the FCC in the Courts

On December 16, the Federalist Society hosted a webinar panel event, "Is FTC Administrative Litigation Unconstitutional?" The webinar's panelists discussed the future of Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) litigation and enforcement in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC (2023) and SEC v. Jarkesy (2024) as well as in light of the Court's openness to revisit the contours of administrative power as reflected by decisions such as West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024).

In Jarkesy, the Court held that the Seventh Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury trial when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeks civil penalties for securities fraud. The Court determined that the SEC's antifraud provisions replicate common law fraud claims that must be heard by a jury. 

 

Although the Supreme Court's holding in Jarkesy was limited to the Seventh Amendment, the FedSoc webinar panel's discussion touched on two facets of the Fifth Circuit's holding in an earlier stage of the case. The Fifth Circuit held that Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by failing to provide an intelligible principle by which the SEC would exercise delegated power, thereby violating the U.S. Constitution's Article I Legislative Vesting Clause. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit held that statutory removal restrictions on SEC Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) violate the Take Care Clause of Article II. Shortly, the Supreme Court will likely tackle nondelegation claims, presidential removal power claims, and other claims brought in other cases against the FTC or other agencies – including the FCC.

 

Indeed, in 2025, the Supreme Court will review the Fifth Circuit's July 2024 en banc decision in Consumers' Research v. FCC. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the universal service contribution system violates the Article I Legislative Vesting Clause. The Court's grant of a writ of certiorari in Consumers' Research v. FCC is noted briefly in my blog post from November 26, 2024. The lower court's decision in the case, which was based on nondelegation principles and precedents, is the subject of my August 2024 Perspectives from FSF Perspectives, "Fifth Circuit Rules USF Contribution Scheme Violates Legislative Vesting Clause."

 

Furthermore, lower courts are likely to weigh in next year on Jarkesy implications for the FCC's enforcement authority. In April 2024, the FCC fined the three nationwide wireless providers for the sale of consumer location-related information. Legal challenges to the Commission's authority to levy those fines are now pending before the D.C. Circuit, the Second Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit. 

 

Added to all of these pending cases are anticipated judicial decisions about the legal fate of the FCC's Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order regulating broadband Internet services as public utilities and the Commission'sDigital Discrimination Order subjecting broadband providers to liability for unintentional disparate impacts. Oral arguments in those respective cases have been held before the Sixth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit. 

 

In all, it looks like 2025 will be a big year for the FCC in the courts.   

USF Tax Hike – Now Up to 36.3%

On December 12, the FCC's Office of Managing Director announced that the Universal Service Fund (USF) contribution factor for the first quarter of 2025 will be 36.3%. Early Happy New Year to American consumers! The rate hike to 36.3% appears to be yet another all-time high for USF surcharges – something the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rightly called an unconstitutional "USF Tax." Absent any unlikely intervention by the FCC's Commissioners, the proposed rate will go into effect. 

USF surcharges are functionally taxes paid by voice consumers on the long-distance part of their monthly bills. The money consumers pay is collected by the voice carriers and passed on to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), the corporation established by the FCC to administer the USF program and dole out subsidies to program recipients. 

The upcoming 36.3% USF surcharge rate is significantly higher than just a few years ago. Free State Foundation President Randolph May wrote about the recent history of spiking USF surcharge rates and concerns about the viability of the USF contribution system in his blog post from June 14 of this year, "The Telephone Tax Rises Again – Now 34%." 

 

As observed in my November 26 blog post, the Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari in Consumers' Research v. FCC. The case, which will review an en banc decision by the 5th Circuit this summer, will be closely watched by many, including taxpayer advocates and opponents of the overreaching administrative state. In Consumers' Research v. FCC, the Court will decide the constitutionality of the USF contribution mechanism and the USF Tax.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to USF's Unconstitutionality

On November 22, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in Consumers' Research v. FCC. The case involves a constitutional challenge to the Universal Service Fund's (USF) contribution mechanism – or "USF Tax." The grant of certiorari is welcome news because it means that the court will resolve a circuit split between the Fifth Circuit. It also provides occasions for the court to clarify the doctrinal status and contours of the non-delegation doctrine. 

The roughly $8 billion annual USF subsidy program is funded by USF surcharges included as line items on the long-distance portion of voice consumers' monthly bills. Due to the increasing size of subsidy distributions and the shrinking size of the contributor base, the quarterly-adjusted surcharge rate has risen to 35.8% -- a much, much higher rate than just a few years ago. 

 

The Supreme Court will be reviewing the July 24 en banc decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that determined the universal service contribution mechanism violates the Legislative Vesting Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Circuit held that Congress's broad delegation of tax authority to the FCC under Section 254 of the Communications Act, combined with the agency's delegation of tax authority to a private entity to collect surcharges from voice carriers and administer the USF, constituted a constitutional violation. Fifth Circuit's en banc decision in Consumers' Research v. FCC, as well as the concurring and dissenting opinions, are summarized in my August 5, 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Fifth Circuit Rules USF Contribution Scheme Violates Legislative Vesting Clause." 

 

The Sixth and Eleventh Circuits previously upheld the USF's contribution mechanism from identical challenges. The Supreme Court will resolve the split between the lower courts. And the court will have occasion to revisit the non-delegation doctrine, which is implicated by the case.  

 

In 2025, expect Free State Foundations scholars to have more to say about a future Supreme Court decision in Consumers' Research v. FCC and the need for Congress to modernize the USF for the broadband era. 

Court Hears Arguments on Challenge to School Wi-Fi Bus Subsidies

 On November 4, oral arguments were held before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Molak v. FCC. The case involves a legal challenge to the Commission's October 2023 School Bus Wi-Fi Order. The Petitioners, represented by David A. Suska during oral arguments, claim that the agency lacks authority under Section 254 of the Communications Act to use E-Rate funds to subsidize Wi-Fi on school buses. 

By a declaratory ruling passed on a 3-2 vote of the Commission's members, the agency is interpreting the law to effectively extend the Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) beyond its sunset date of June 2024. The ECF was a $58.2 billion subsidy program for subsidizing Wi-Fi hotspots and broadband services for school buses and off-campus connectivity. The program was authorized under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) as a lockdown-era emergency measure. Section 7402 of the ARPA expressly authorized subsidies for supporting "eligible equipment" and advanced telecommunications and information services for use by students, school staff, and library goers "at locations that include locations other than the school" and "other than the library."

 

In our February 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "FCC's School Bus Wi-Fi Subsidy Lacks Statutory Support," Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I addressed legal problems with the School Bus Wi-Fi Order. Section 254 of the Communications Act is more limited than Section 7402 of the ARPA. Section 254(h)(1)(B) authorizes the Commission to provide subsidy support to telecommunications carriers for "services to elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries for educational purposes." And Section 254(h)(2)(A) directs the Commission to adopt competitively neutral rules to enhance "access to advanced telecommunications and information services for all public nonprofit elementary and secondary school classrooms, health care providers, and libraries." In short, we concluded that the FCC overreached in subsidizing school bus Wi-Fi subsidies under Section 254 because buses are notschools, classrooms, or libraries – and schools are not telecommunications carriers. 

 

Before the Fifth Circuit, Mr. Suska ably argued that the School Bus Wi-Fi Order exceeded the law in four ways: (1) by making subsidies available to anyone, not just telecommunications carriers; (2) by making subsidies available for any kind of service, not just telecommunications services; (3) by making subsidies available for equipment, which is not in the statute; and (4) by providing subsidies to schools instead of telecommunications carriers.  

 

On behalf of the FCC, Ms. Rachel Proctor May argued: "The word 'classroom' is best interpreted to include buses that have been outfitted with Wi-Fi so they can serve as rolling study halls." That type of elastic interpretation might have sufficed under the old "Chevron doctrine." But that is a decidedly strained and result-driven interpretation by the FCC, and one the agency cannot rely on for its authority now that the Supreme Court's decision in Loper-Bright v. Raimondo has overruled Chevron. Moreover, it goes against human experience to think that anything but the tiniest amount of homework will take place on Wi-Fi-connected school buses. No claimed agency technical expertise about imagined homework on school buses ought to rescue the FCC from the overreach of its School Bus Wi-Fi Order. 

 

A significant portion of the oral arguments before the court addressed threshold procedural issues regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies and standing. Yet if the Fifth Circuit rules on the merits, there is a strong likelihood that the court will vacate the FCC's School Bus Wi-Fi Order. 

Lawsuit Challenges FCC Order Subsidizing Wi-Fi Away from Schools and Libraries

On August 29, a petition was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that challenges the legal basis for the FCC's July 2024 Off-Premises Wi-Fi Order. The petition filed in Molak v. FCC states that the Commission's order "unlawfully expands the FCC’s E-Rate Program to subsidize Wi-Fi service and equipment anywhere students might go." E-Rate is part of the Universal Service Fund (USF), which is funded by surcharges – functional taxes – paid each month by voice consumers. The petition alleges that the order’s increase in E-Rate Program outlays will directly increase USF surcharges that the petitioners pay each month. It also alleges that subsidizing Wi-Fi use away from school premises "enabl[es] unsupervised social-media access by children and teenagers."

The unlawfulness of the Commission's Off-Premises Wi-Fi Order is the subject of my August 20 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "FCC Can't Subsidize Wi-Fi Use Away from Schools and Libraries." As explained therein, Section 254(h) of the Communications Act, the statutory provision that provides the legal basis for the E-Rate Program and upon which the Commission relies for its order, authorizes universal service subsidies only to or for "schools," "classrooms," and "libraries." But subsidies for off-premises Wi-Fi use – potentially anywhere in the world – are not included in the statute.

 

Moreover, the legal challenge to the Off-Premises Wi-Fi Order in Molak v. FCC parallels a prior legal challenge with an identical case name that was filed in the Fifth Circuit last year against the Commission's 2023 School Bus Wi-Fi Order. The prior agency order authorized universal subsidies for Wi-Fi equipment and service on school buses. The unlawfulness of the prior order is the subject of a February 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars by Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I, titled "FCC's School Bus Wi-Fi Subsidy Lacks Statutory Support."

 

In both Molak v. FCC cases, the petitioners raise important issues about agency accountability to the law and to the American public. The outcome of these pending legal challenges to administrative agency overreach will have implications for responsible spending of precious dollars collected from the public and for child online safety.

After Court Ruling on USF's Unconstitutionality, Congress Should Pass Reforms

On August 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order staying the issue of a mandate for its July 24 decision holding that the Universal Service Fund’s (USF) contribution mechanism – or "USF tax" – violated the U.S. Constitution's Article I Legislative Vesting Clause. The stay order anticipates that the FCC will be filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court and that the stay will then be extended until the court final disposition.

The lengthy Fifth Circuit en banc decision in Consumers' Research v. FCC, as well as the concurring and dissenting opinions that were issued, are summarized in my August 5, 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Fifth Circuit Rules USF Contribution Scheme Violates Legislative Vesting Clause."

 

My August 9 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Court Ruling on USF's Unconstitutionality Should Spur Reform in Congress" explained that Congress should not wait for the Supreme Court to act. As I wrote: 

Congress should act promptly to make the USF program fiscally sustainable and constitutionally sound for the broadband era. It should fund the USF via direct appropriations and intelligibly define broadband as a service eligible for support. If needed, Congress should consider requiring major online companies to make USF contributions under principles that limit subsidy amounts. Along with stronger curbs on waste and abuse, such reforms would preserve universal service, eliminate or at least reduce significantly the USF tax on consumers – which now stands at 34.4% – and enable future downsizing of the USF into a primarily voucher-like program supporting low-income consumers.

The Fifth Circuit's stay order avoids any sudden disruption to the USF program. It also provides window of time for Congress to exercise its authority and finally pass reforms that will modernize the USF program. Congress should make the program more efficient in supporting broadband access for those who are most deserving of help and ensure its future financial sustainability.