U.S. Telecom Association v. Federal Communications Commission
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
825 F.3d 674 (2016)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (defendant) promulgated the 2010 Open Internet Order to compel broadband providers to treat all internet traffic equally regardless of its source—a principle often called net neutrality. The 2010 order said internet service providers must provide transparency and not block or unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic. Multiple broadband providers filed lawsuits challenging the 2010 order. In Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014), the court concluded that the 2010 order essentially treated broadband providers like common carriers, which the FCC could do only if it reclassified broadband internet as telecommunications services instead of information services. The FCC responded by doing just that in its 2015 Open Internet Order, reclassifying broadband carriers as common carriers subject to regulation under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. U.S. Telecom Association and other organizations representing broadband providers (plaintiffs) sued and challenged the 2015 order on First Amendment grounds, arguing it forced providers to transmit speech they might find disagreeable.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tatel and Srinivasan, JJ.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
