Rural Health Care

The Universal Service Fund’s day in court came and went, and the U.S. telecommunications industry still has hope the subsidy will live to see another day. But even if the Supreme Court deems the USF framework constitutional, there’s still no easy path to reform the program. The Supreme Court heard arguments related to the Fifth Circuit’s decision that the USF’s funding method is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court held oral arguments in Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research, a case challenging the legality of the Universal Service Fund framework.

The Universal Service Fund has done little or nothing for universal service. Mobile phones and the internet have become ubiquitous in rural areas and among those of low income. Most schools, libraries, and healthcare facilities have been hooked up for years (to the dismay of many teachers). This is thanks to the alacrity of today’s high technology, massive private investments, profound improvements in service quality and proficiency, and constantly falling prices.

It was to be one hour of oral arguments about the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) Universal Service Fund (USF) program, considering whether Congress delegated too much of its authority when it created the program in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Instead, U.S. Supreme Court justices spent more than two and a half hours peppering attorneys with questions about the nature of USF, whether the statute fails to set limits on the amount of funding it can collect and whether those fees are, in fact, taxes on the American public that Congress never debated.

This country has long valued ensuring connectivity for all—regardless of income, location, or circumstance. The Universal Service Fund or USF has been an essential part of that promise, providing the funding necessary to connect millions of Americans. Whether through a phone line, broadband connection, or both, access to communications has been critical for economic opportunity and equality. When we invest in connectivity, we invest in people. We invest in their futures.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the consolidated cases Nos.

Lawyers defending the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to manage a longstanding $8.1 billion broadband subsidy expressed cautious optimism ahead of the March 26 Supreme Court oral arguments in FCC v.

Community anchor institutions (CAIs)—such as schools, libraries, community health centers, and similar organizations—play a crucial role in offering free or affordable internet access to underserved communities. In many areas, the connectivity options offered by CAIs—whether on-site (via wired or wireless networks) or through remote programs like hotspot lending—are among the few affordable and reliable services available.

Congress is supposed to write the laws, but these days it often prefers to delegate to the executive branch, and then cheer or boo the results. Twice amid the New Deal, but not since, the Supreme Court struck down statutes as abdications of Congress’s lawmaking power. Yet the Court has another chance in the case that the Justices will consider Wednesday, FCC v. Consumers’ Research.

Federal law seeks to make communications technology like telephones and the internet, in the words of one older statute, “available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States.” A longstanding federal program that seeks to implement this goal is now before the Supreme Court, in a case known as FCC v. Consumers’ Research, and the stakes could be enormous.