Today, March 26, 2025, The Supreme Court of the United States released an MP3 file containing the consolidated cases FCC v. Consumers’ Research and SHLB Coalition v. Consumers’ Research.
24-354 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. CONSUMERS’ RESEARCH
DECISION BELOW: 109 F.4th 743
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-60008
QUESTION PRESENTED:
In 47 U.S.C. 254, Congress required the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) to operate universal service subsidy programs using mandatorycontributions from telecommunications carriers. The Commission has appointed a private company as the programs’ Administrator, authorizing that company to perform administrative tasks such as sending out bills, collecting contributions, and disbursing funds to beneficiaries. The questions presented are as follows:
1. Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in Section 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Fund.
2. Whether the Commission violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the Administrator’s financial projections in computing universal service contribution rates.
3. Whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the Commission and the Commission’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the Administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine.
CONSOLIDATED WITH 24-422 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT
IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONS, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THIS CASE IS MOOT IN LIGHT OF THE CHALLENGERS’ FAILURE TO SEEK PRELIMINARY RELIEF BEFORE THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
CERT. GRANTED 11/22/2024
24-422 SHLB COALITION V. CONSUMERS’ RESEARCH
DECISION BELOW: 109 F.4th 743
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-60008
QUESTION PRESENTED:
In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress required the FCC to update existing subsidy mechanisms in order to promote “universal service,” supported by statutorily required contributions from carriers offering interstate telecommunications service. Congress defined universal service and adopted specific, detailed principles to guide and cabin the FCC’s exercise of delegated authority. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 254(b), (c), (h).
Following Congress’s directive in Section 254, the FCC has administered the Universal Service Fund (“USF” or “the Fund”) for decades, with support from the Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”). The FCC’s rules limit USAC’s role to administrative matters, prohibit USAC from making policy decisions, and provide for de novo FCC review of any USAC decision upon request.
The questions presented are:
1. Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in Section 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Fund.
2. Whether the Commission violated the nondelegation doctrine by using USAC’s financial projections in computing universal service contribution rates.
3. Whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the Commission and the Commission’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to USAC violates the nondelegation doctrine.
CONSOLIDATED WITH 24-354 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT.
IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONS, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THIS CASE IS MOOT IN LIGHT OF THE CHALLENGERS’ FAILURE TO SEEK PRELIMINARY RELIEF BEFORE THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
CERT. GRANTED 11/22/2024
Read the transcript here:
Listen to the Audio Here:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2hSrdTcGCsteFCmreaVPzt?si=EsUJo_G6Tu6wztoDmyxk9w
Banuelos 
Leave a comment