Court case

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

The Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules will go into effect July 22, unless the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals places a stay on the rules. Several different groups have filed lawsuits, claiming that the FCC broke the law when it decided to reclassify broadband providers under Title II of the Communications Act.

The US Supreme Court declined to question the $8 billion annual subsidy that helps cover the cost of telecom services for poor people and residents of rural areas, turning away two appeals that sought to rein in federal regulatory power.

In a series of orders beginning in 2005, the Federal Communications Commission has acted to promote the widespread deployment of broadband networks that are open, affordable, and accessible to all. Four of these previous orders have been reviewed by the D.C. Circuit; the challenge to a fifth order is currently pending (but in abeyance) there as well.  The D.C. Circuit has approved aspects of the FCC’s orders but disagreed with others—on several occasions remanding to the FCC for further action or additional deliberation. Thus, for more than a decade, the D.C.

How should we balance freedom of speech with the flood of slanderous statements, extremist manifestoes and conspiracy theories that proliferate on the internet? The United States decided decades ago to let private companies solve that quandary themselves. The Supreme Court made this position official in three major rulings in the 1990s and early 2000s. But lawmakers aren’t sure about this arrangement, now that giant online platforms are the new town square. A series of federal court cases will address these questions. Courts have faced six broad questions about online speech:

As expected, broadband industry lobby groups have sued the Federal Communications Commission in an attempt to nullify net neutrality rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. Lobby groups representing cable, telecom, and mobile Internet service providers sued the FCC in several US appeals courts.

Broadband industry groups are asking a federal appeals court to scuttle the Federal Communications Commission's new disclosure obligations on telecommunications companies that suffer data breaches. The agency specifically required companies to notify consumers, federal law enforcement agencies and the agency about all breaches—even “inadvertent” ones—that expose personally identifiable information, including sensitive financial information. The broadband lobbying groups argue that Congress stripped the FCC of authority to issue the new regulations.