Supreme Court may uphold programs aimed at bringing internet to rural, poor neighborhoods

The Supreme Court appeared sympathetic Wednesday to a series of programs geared toward expanding high-speed internet in rural and poor communities, despite a challenge from a conservative group claiming funding for that effort violates separation of powers principles.

The Supreme Court appeared sympathetic Wednesday to a series of programs geared toward expanding high-speed internet in rural and poor communities, despite a challenge from a conservative group claiming funding for that effort violates separation of powers principles. After nearly three hours of argument, several of the court’s conservatives – along with all of its liberals – raised concerns about a ruling that could upend the way other federal agencies function, including the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission. If the court upholds the structure of the Federal Communications Commission’s funding for the programs, it would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of significantly limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress. “These are the services that all the rest of us take for granted that you can’t take for granted in rural North Dakota,” Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court’s liberal wing, said in summarizing her reading of the law. “And what this program says is that rural North Dakota citizens should also get what all the rest of us have long had.” Congress created the Universal Service Fund in 1996 to pay for efforts to expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income urban parts of the country. Telecommunications companies contribute billions to that fund – a cost that is passed on to consumers – to pay for programs like E-Rate, which lowers the cost of high-speed internet for libraries and schools. A conservative “consumer awareness group” challenged that fund as an unconstitutional “delegation” of the power of Congress to levy taxes. What’s worse, the group argues, a private entity calculates the amount of money that must be contributed. The Supreme Court has not invoked the nondelegation doctrine – or the idea that Congress cannot delegate its authority – since the 1930s. It has, for decades, permitted delegations under certain conditions.