Washington – The last attempt by the conservatives of undermining the federal bureaucracy arrives at the Supreme Court on Wednesday when the judges consider whether the Federal Communications Commission exercises power illegally through a program that subsidizes telecommunications services in unattended regions.
The Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that in a series of recent decisions undermines the authority of government agencies and advanced a largely favored deregulating agenda by commercial interests and Republicans.
The case refers to whether Congress in a 1996 law exceeded its authority to establish the Universal Service Fund, which requires that telecommunications services present payments to subsidize the “universal service” in rural areas of low income and rural.
The rates, which are transmitted to customers, raise billions of dollars a year that are spent on providing telephone and internet services, even for schools, libraries and hospitals.
A second connected legal question is whether the FCC could delegate its own authority to a private corporation that established the administrative company of the Universal Service to administer the Fund.
The Supreme Court also asked both parties to argue whether the case is debatable, which means that the judges could get rid of the case without issuing a complete decision.
Although the Trump administration has unleashed an aggressive and fiercely challenged effort to weaken federal agencies by shooting thousands of workers, their lawyers defend the FCC in the case. The issue came to the Supreme Court before President Donald Trump assumed the position in January, and the Department of Justice has not changed his legal position of the Biden Administration.
The Trump administration has tried to exercise the powers of the Presidency at the expense of Congress and Judicial, so in that sense its position in the case is consistent with that approach.
The case touches a legal principle called “doctrine of non -delegation”, which favor some conservatives, the theory is that Congress has limited powers to delegate its legislative authority to the executive branch.
The current court has not yet adopted the idea, although several members of the court have expressed their support. If the Court supports it, the agencies would face new limits in their powers to implement existing laws and programs that seek to enforce the laws open promulgated by Congress.
The critics of the legal status quo say that such a measure would restore the correct balance between Congress and the Executive Branch under the principle of separation of powers of the Constitution by ensuring that legislators have control of imposing taxes and spending the money they generate.
The lower courts were divided on the issue, with the FCC and a coalition led by the investigation of consumers, a conservative group, asking the Supreme Court to intervene.
The opponents call the universal service fund rate a tax form and say that only elected officials, not bureaucrats, have the power to impose it. The 1996 law is particularly problematic because it does not tell the FCC how much money can be collected through the program, the lawyers of the challengers argue.
In judicial documents, lawyers for consumer investigation described the program as a “bureaucrat’s dream” and a “nightmare scenario.”
Republican general prosecutors of Western Virginia and another 14 states presented a brief support of the challengers. While “many programs” in their states have benefited from the FCC program, “they do not need to take a position on whether this law is a good policy issue,” wrote West Virginia attorney, John McCuskey.
The Biden administration appealed before the Supreme Court after the 5th Court of Appeals of the United States circuit based in New Orleans failed against the FCC.
The argument established in the judicial documents of the Department of Justice in the Biden and Trump administrations is that, although Congress cannot “delegate the legislative power to the executive agencies”, it can “authorize an agency to exercise discretion in the implementation of a statute.”
