Federal Judiciary Impedes Biden's Net Neutrality Regulations as He Prepares to Depart Office
A higher court has annulled the newest net neutrality regulations set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), allowing internet service providers (ISPs) to discretionarily limit web access for specific clients and services without consequence.
This turn of events marks another development in a prolonged conflict in Washington concerning the FCC's power to regulate telecommunications companies. Additionally, it signals a decline in executive branch agencies' capacity to interpret the laws they monitor thanks to a 2024 Supreme Court ruling, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This ruling reversed the previous legal theory, referred to as the Chevron deference, which granted agencies leeway in interpreting ambiguous laws.
In 2015, under former President Barack Obama, the FCC concluded that broadband internet providers should be classified as telecommunications services and were therefore prohibited from arbitrarily restricting or slowing down internet access for users as well as favoring specific websites that had paid for preferential treatment.
However, under President Donald Trump's administration in 2018, the FCC rescinded the net neutrality regulations. In 2024, under President Joe Biden, the FCC voted to reinstate them.
A group of telecom industry associations retaliated by filing a lawsuit to nullify the regulations again, resulting in the recent ruling from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The panel of three judges opined that, during the first 15 years following the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC managed the internet with minimal intervention and categorized ISPs as "information services," limiting their regulatory scope. This classification shifted in 2015 when the agency reappraised internet service providers as telecommunications services, a classification under the 1996 law that permitted stricter control.
In prior legal challenges to the net neutrality regulations, federal courts upheld the FCC's decision to categorize internet service providers as telecommunications services, citing the 1984 Supreme Court case, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This case granted executive branch agencies the ability to tackle ambiguities in laws passed by Congress.
Nevertheless, with the current Supreme Court having overturned the Chevron deference, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC does not possess the authority to decide how ISPs should be classified.
In response to this decision, FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel urged Congress to intervene.
"Consumers nationwide have consistently expressed their desire for an internet that is swift, impartial, and equitable," she stated. "With this judgement, it is evident that Congress should now heed their demands, pick up the torch for net neutrality, and embed principal open internet guidelines into federal law."
This decision by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals could potentially reshape the tech industry's future, as it restricts the FCC's ability to classify internet service providers as telecommunications services. In light of this, advocates for technology and net neutrality are urging Congress to adopt stricter regulations to ensure a future with a swift, impartial, and equitable internet.
