Court case

The government’s warrantless collection of emails and other Internet data for national security purposes is lawful, but searching that information for Americans’ communications raises constitutional privacy questions, a federal appeals court in New York ruled. At issue is an appeal by a former Brooklyn man who pleaded guilty to supporting a foreign terrorist group and now is seeking to overturn his conviction, saying the evidence against him was obtained through warrantless surveillance that violated the Fourth Amendment.

Makan Delrahim, the Justice Department’s antitrust chief, urged the chairman of Dish Network to enlist US senators to help win the Federal Communications Commission’s approval for the merger of Sprint and T-Mobile US, which would involve asset sales to the satellite TV provider. “Today would be a good day to have your Senator friends contact the [FCC] chairman,” Delrahim said in a text one day before the states sued to block the deal.

Huawei's Fifth Circuit challenge to a Federal Communications Commission ban against carriers using federal subsidies to buy its equipment is unlikely to succeed, attorneys and academics watching the case say. The Communications Act gives the FCC near “plenary authority” over how it disperses more than $4 billion in subsidies aimed at furthering universal access to internet and telephone services, Philip Verveer, who served as senior counselor to former Democratic FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, said. The subsidies generally go to rural carriers to expand services in remote areas.

Whether Americans will pay more for cellphone service is at the center of arguments made by both sides battling last week over T-Mobile's purchase of Sprint. The coalition of state attorneys general that filed the antitrust lawsuit challenging the $26 billion merger fear consumers will pay more if the No. 3 and No. 4 U.S. carriers by subscribers combine, and that wireless industry competition will suffer.

Messages by a Sprint executive revealed in federal court suggested he thought an acquisition by T-Mobile might push up mobile-service prices for consumers, undercutting T-Mobile’s argument that its deal will benefit Americans. The text messages, presented by attorneys for a coalition of states suing to block the deal on antitrust grounds, were sent in October 2017 by Roger Sole, Sprint’s chief marketing officer, to Sprint’s then-CEO Marcelo Claure. Sole wrote that customer prices could rise an average $5 per user if a deal went through.

US District Judge Victor Marrero told lawyers fighting over T-Mobile’s more than $26 billion bid for Sprint to skip their customary opening arguments so they could start questioning witnesses, a sign he is seeking a speedy trial. And he asked both sides to trim their lists of witnesses to avoid beating him “over the head” with testimony. The bench trial is scheduled to carry into Christmas week but could last longer. The states’ first witness, Sprint marketing chief Roger Solé, testified to the company’s efforts to lure subscribers away from rivals, including T-Mobile.

A conclusion to the winding saga that is the T-Mobile/Sprint merger is inching closer, with an antitrust trial against several state attorneys general suing to block the deal slated to start Dec 9. Apparently, T-Mobile is eyeing a price cut for what started as a $26.5 billion deal, since Sprint’s finical situation has worsened as uncertainty about a tie-up between the nation’s third and fourth largest wireless carriers lingered. Sprint has also been recently impacted by disclosures that it incorrectly claimed subsidies for inactive Lifeline subscribers.

The Communications Workers of America is suing to block the Federal Communications Commission’s approval of T-Mobile's takeover of Sprint in a Washington (DC) federal appeals court. The FCC exceeded its statutory authority in approving the deal, the union alleged in its Dec 5 lawsuit in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The lawsuit is a new legal hurdle for the merger, which is already being challenged by a group of states. The FCC’s approval order violates the U.S. Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Communications Act of 1934, CWA alleged.

Huawei is suing the Federal Communications Commission for choking off its sales in the United States, the latest in the besieged company’s widening efforts to hit back at regulators and critics across the globe. The FCC voted in November to bar American telecommunications companies from using federal subsidies to buy equipment from Huawei and another Chinese supplier, ZTE. Washington considers both firms to be national security risks. “The FCC claims that Huawei is a security threat.

In late October, the Supreme Court quietly declined to review Lipschultz v. Charter Advanced Services, an Eighth Circuit decision that preempted state regulation of fixed Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) service. While concurring in the denial of certiorari, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to challenge the underlying theory of federal preemption, noting that “it is doubtful whether a federal policy — let alone a policy of nonregulation — is" sufficient to establish conflict preemption.