Facts of the Case
Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which was amended in 1996, subjected providers of "telecommunications service" to mandatory common- carrier regulation. The FCC concluded that this did not include broadband cable companies. The Ninth Circuit reversed and cited its own previous opinion that had held that cable modem service was a "telecommunications service."
Questions
Did the FCC lawfully interpret the Communications Act of 1934 by deciding that broadband cable companies did not provide a "telecommunications service?"
Conclusions
-
Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that the FCC lawfully construed the Communications Act to not define cable broadband providers as "telecommunications services." The Court held that the Ninth Circuit should have followed the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. That decision required federal courts to defer to an agency's construction of a statute, if that statute was within the agency's jurisdiction to administer and the agency's interpretation was reasonable, even if it differed from the court's own interpretation. In this case, the Court held that the FCC's construction was reasonable.
In the Shadow of Skidmore and Seminole Rock?: Chevron and Auer Deference and Their Conceits
When an agency interprets a statute it administers, a court will defer to the agency’s...
The FCC Should Address Distortions of Section 230
That's Debatable is a new blog initiative bringing together legal and policy experts with differing perspectives...
Kisor v. Wilkie Makes Auer a Paper Tiger
Federalist Society Review, Volume 20
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
Baldwin v. U.S.: Will the Chevron Doctrine Be Refined or Overruled?
In Baldwin v. United States, No. 17-55115 (filed April 16, 2019), the United States...
Net Neutrality Back in Court: Will the Economics Hold Up?
Tomorrow, the sordid tale of net neutrality heads back to court at the D.C. Circuit...
Net Neutrality Without the FCC?: Why the FTC Can Regulate Broadband Effectively
Federalist Society Review, Volume 18
Note from the Editor: This article argues that the FTC has jurisdiction over broadband and the...
How to Regulate the Internet
Federalist Society Review, Volume 18
Note from the Editor: This article traces the history of the FCC’s approach to regulating...
The FCC Forgot Something in Piecing Together Its Complex Proposal for Broadband Privacy Regulation: Consumers
Federalist Society Review, Volume 17, Issue 3
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the FCC’s proposed rules for broadband privacy, and...
DC Circuit Upholds FCC's Nearly Open-Ended Power to Regulate Broadband
On June 14, a 2-1 majority of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals gave absolute...
Net Neutrality and the Rule of Law
Engage Volume 16, Issue 2
This article is about the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules. As always, the Federalist...
Net Neutrality vs. Net Reality: Why an Evidence-Based Approach to Enforcement, And Not More Regulation, Could Protect Innovation on the Web
Engage Volume 14, Issue 1 February 2013
Related Links: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing on “Network Neutrality” (testimony of...
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 in the Twenty-first Century
Engage Volume 13, Issue 3 October 2012
I. Introduction Prior to 1996, local telephony was perceived to be a natural monopoly, subjecting...
