Search a title or topic

Over 20 million podcasts, powered by 

Player FM logo
Artwork

Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

Oral Argument: FCC v. Consumers' Research | Case No. 24-354 | Date Argued: 3/26/25

2:33:19
 
Share
 

Manage episode 478455678 series 3660688
Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.

Case Info: FCC v. Consumers' Research | Case No. 24-354 | Date Argued: 3/26/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

In 47 U.S.C. 254, Congress required the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) to operate universal service subsidy programs using mandatory contributions 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.

Questions Presented:

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.

Host Note: Consolidated with: SHLB Coalition V. Consumers' Research, Case No. 23-422.

Oral Advocates:

  • For petitioners in 24-354: Sarah M. Harris, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
  • For petitioners in 24-422: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va.
  • For respondents: R. Trent McCotter, Washington, D. C. VIDED.

  continue reading

94 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 478455678 series 3660688
Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.

Case Info: FCC v. Consumers' Research | Case No. 24-354 | Date Argued: 3/26/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

In 47 U.S.C. 254, Congress required the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) to operate universal service subsidy programs using mandatory contributions 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.

Questions Presented:

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.

Host Note: Consolidated with: SHLB Coalition V. Consumers' Research, Case No. 23-422.

Oral Advocates:

  • For petitioners in 24-354: Sarah M. Harris, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
  • For petitioners in 24-422: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va.
  • For respondents: R. Trent McCotter, Washington, D. C. VIDED.

  continue reading

94 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Listen to this show while you explore
Play