New Orleans Court Rules FCC Funding Approach Unconstitutional
A federal appeals court in New Orleans recently made a significant ruling regarding the Federal Communications Commission’s approach to funding phone service for rural and low-income individuals, as well as broadband service for schools and libraries. The court deemed this funding method unconstitutional, labeling it as an “undue tax.”
Implications of the Ruling
The 9-7 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has raised questions about the future of funding for essential communication services. While the immediate impact remains uncertain, the dissenting justices pointed out that the ruling conflicts with decisions by three other circuit courts. The matter has been sent back to the FCC for further review, and there is potential for the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Debating the Universal Service Fund
At the center of the case is the Universal Service Fund (USF), which is financed by fees collected from telecom carriers and ultimately passed on to consumers. Critics, including the conservative advocacy group Consumer Research, have raised concerns about this funding mechanism. The USF supports programs that provide telephone service to low-income and rural individuals, as well as broadband access to schools and libraries.
In his ruling, Judge Andrew Oldham highlighted the laudable goals of these programs but criticized the unconstitutional funding structure. He pointed out that the current system delegates taxing powers to entities outside of Congress, violating the Constitution. This perspective garnered support from some judges while drawing dissent from others who raised objections based on precedent and legal principles.
Overall, the ruling has sparked a debate about the balance between funding essential services and ensuring constitutional compliance. The future of communication service funding in the United States may hang in the balance as the legal process unfolds.
