Court case

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote overturned the landmark decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, sharply limiting the authority of federal administrative agencies including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). After the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, it will be easier to challenge and overturn agency decisions, and federal agencies will be more hesitant to adopt new regulations absent clear Congressional direction.

TBlair Levin, analyst for New Street Research and former chief of staff at the FCC, discusses the Supreme Court's June 28 decision striking down Chevron deference (a.k.a, the Loper Bright decision), and the implications for the telecommunications industry at large.

The telecommunications industry has unleashed a barrage of lawsuits designed to block a major policy goal of the Biden administration, a new internet-fairness regime it hopes to lock down ahead of the November election. The conflict is likely to drag on through the rest of 2024, showcasing the kind of behind-the-scenes Washington fight that can flare in an election year as a White House tries to cement its legacy. The suits opened a new front in the battle over “net neutrality,” a policy the Federal Communications Commission voted to adopt in April.

The Supreme Court's decision limiting executive branch power also further hobbled U.S.

The Supreme Court gave companies more time to challenge many regulations, ruling that a six-year statute of limitations for filing lawsuits begins when a regulation first affects a company rather than when it is first issued. The ruling in the case—the latest in a series of challenges to administrative power—could amplify the effect of the blockbuster decision overturning a foundational legal precedent known as Chevron deference, which required federal courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable inter

The Supreme Court avoided a definitive resolution of challenges to laws in Florida and Texas that curb the power of social media companies to moderate content, leaving in limbo an effort by Republicans who have promoted such legislation to remedy what they say is a bias against conservatives. Instead, the justices unanimously agreed to return the cases to lower courts for analysis. The laws were prompted in part by the decisions of some platforms to bar President Donald J. Trump after the Jan.

On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a bedrock principle of administrative law called the Chevron doctrine. The vehicle was an opinion for two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce.

The US Supreme Court just overturned Chevron v. The Natural Resources Defense Council, a 40 year old precedent for how government works. This is big news for anyone interested in the way technology (and Big Tech) shape public policy, and vice versa. Why does Chevron matter? As ordained by our political system, Congress is supposed to set rules and regulations that protect our rights. In today’s world, no elected representative can be an expert on every topic where they are called to make a decision.

The Supreme Court reduced the authority of executive agencies, sweeping aside a longstanding legal precedent that required courts to defer to the expertise of federal administrators in carrying out laws passed by Congress. The precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, is one of the most cited in American law. There have been 70 Supreme Court decisions relying on Chevron, along with 17,000 in the lower courts.

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Biden Administration's contacts with social media platforms to combat what administration officials said was misinformation. The lawsuit, spearheaded by Republican state attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana, had fared well in the lower courts, at one point resulting in an unprecedented injunction that blocked top government officials from communicating with social-media