Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: March 26, 2025
Decided: June 27, 2025
Outcome
reversed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Elena Kagan • Chief Justice John Roberts • Sonia Sotomayor • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Brett Kavanaugh • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dissenting
Neil Gorsuch • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research is a case concerning whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by delegating authority to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to make determinations related to the Universal Service Fund.

The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on June 27, 2025. In a 6-3 opinion, SCOTUS ruled that neither Congress' delegation of authority to the FCC nor the FCC's use of advice from a private company in managing the Universal Service Fund violated the nondelegation doctrine.[1]

The case was scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 26, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. The case was consolidated with Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition v. Consumers’ Research for oral argument before the court.[2][3]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the nondelegation doctrine and the Universal Service Fund Tax that subsidizes universal telecommunication access managed by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The 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."[4]

      Additionally, the Court asked the parties to argue "Whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the Fifth Circuit."[4]
  • The outcome: Neither Congress' delegation of authority to the FCC nor the FCC's use of advise from a private company in managing the Universal Service Fund violated the nondelegation doctrine.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Why it matters: The case determined that Congress did not violate the nondelegation doctrine by delegating legislative power to the FCC. The Supreme Court has not relied on the nondelegation doctrine in a decision since 1935.

    Background

    Administrative State
    Administrative State Icon Gold.png
    Five Pillars of the Administrative State
    • Judicial deference
    • Nondelegation
    • Executive control
    • Procedural rights
    • Agency dynamics
    Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia

    Personnel

    Federal Communications Commission, et al., Petitioners v. Consumers' Research, et al.

    The following were the parties to this case:[5]

    • Petitioner: Federal Communications Commission, et al.
    • Respondent: Consumers' Research, et al.
      • Legal counsel: R. Trent McCotter (Boyden Gray PLLC), Jason Edward Neal (HWG LLP)

    Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition v. Consumers’ Research

    The following were the parties to this case:[7]

    • Petitioner: Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition
      • Legal counsel: Jason Edward Neal (HWG LLP), Jennifer Beth Tatel (Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP)
    • Respondent: Consumers' Research, et al.
      • Legal counsel: R. Trent McCotter (Boyden Gray PLLC)

    Case summary

    The following summary of the case was published by SCOTUSblog:[8]

    “ At the Biden administration’s request, the court agreed to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that invalidated parts of a program by the Federal Communications Commission to improve internet and phone services in underserved areas.


    The court of appeals said that the program violated the Constitution by improperly delegating Congress’s power to the FCC and the FCC’s power to a private company.
    The theory at the heart of the case... is known as the nondelegation doctrine. The Supreme Court has not relied on the doctrine in nearly a century, but conservative lawyers and business groups have urged the justices in recent years to revive it.[9]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 27, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court decided the case by a vote of 6-3.
    • March 26, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • November 22, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • September 30, 2024: Federal Communications Commission, et al. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • July 24, 2024: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the FCC for further proceedings, holding that the Q1 2022 USF Tax is unconstitutional.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[4]

    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.[9]
    		 ”

    Additionally, the Court presented the following question for the parties to argue: "Whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the Fifth Circuit."[4]

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[10]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[11]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 ruling, the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that Congress did not violate 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, and that Commission did not violate the nondelegation doctrine by using the Administrator's financial projections in computing universal service contribution rates.

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:[12]

    “

    The question in this case is whether the universal-service scheme—more particularly, its contribution mechanism— violates the Constitution’s nondelegation doctrine, either because Congress has given away its power to the FCC or because the FCC has given away its power to a private company. We hold that no impermissible transfer of authority has occurred. Under our nondelegation precedents, Congress sufficiently guided and constrained the discretion that it lodged with the FCC to implement the universal-service contribution scheme. And the FCC, in its turn, has retained all decision-making authority within that sphere, relying on the Administrative Company only for non-binding advice. Nothing in those arrangements, either separately or together, violates the Constitution. [9]

    		”
    —Justice Elena Kagan

    Concurring opinion (Kavanaugh)

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[12]

    “

    As the Court explains, Congress has delegated authority to the FCC with respect to the Universal Service Fund in accordance with the longstanding intelligible principle test. If the FCC were an independent agency, however, the question would be more difficult. Because that issue is not presented in this case, I join the Court’s opinion in full. [9]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Concurring opinion (Jackson)

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurrence, Justice Jackson wrote:[12]

    “

    Respondents in this case have challenged the Federal Communications Commission’s universal-service program under both the traditional nondelegation doctrine and the private nondelegation doctrine. The Court properly rejects both challenges today, and I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately to express my skepticism that the private nondelegation doctrine—which purports to bar the Government from delegating authority to private actors—is a viable and independent doctrine in the first place. Nothing in the text of the Constitution appears to support a per se rule barring private delegations. And recent scholarship highlights a similar lack of support for the doctrine in our history and precedents. [9]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

    In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[12]

    “

    Within the federal government, Congress “alone has access to the pockets of the people.” The Federalist No. 48, p.334 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (J. Madison). The Constitution affords only our elected representatives the power to decide which taxes the government can collect and at what rates. See Art. I, §8, cl. 1. Throughout the Nation’s history, Congress has almost invariably respected this assignment. As this Court observed some decades ago, it would represent “a sharp break with our traditions” for Congress to abdicate its responsibilities and “besto[w] on a federal agency the taxing power.” National Cable Television Assn., Inc. v. United States, 415 U. S. 336, 341 (1974).

    Today, the Court departs from these time-honored rules. [9]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[13]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 SCOTUSblog, "Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research," accessed July 2, 2025
    2. ↑ Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 24-354. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 24-354. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”
    3. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition v. Consumers’ Research," accessed November 27, 2024
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 U.S. Supreme Court, "24-354 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. CONSUMERS’ RESEARCH" November 22, 2024
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24-354 Federal Communications Commission, et al., Petitioners v. Consumers' Research, et al.," accessed November 27, 2024
    6. ↑ Note: When this case was argued, legal counsel was given by then-acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24-422 Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition v. Consumers’ Research," accessed November 27, 2024
    8. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research", November 22, 2024
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 26, 2025
    11. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 26, 2025
    12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 U.S. Supreme Court, "Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research," June 27, 2025
    13. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Federal_Communications_Commission_v._Consumers’_Research&oldid=10427025"