The FCC and Its Private Taxman Go to Court
There are seismic tremors rocking the U.S. regulatory state. Chevron deference is dead, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is attempting to make large cuts in federal spending and hiring, and President Donald Trump has brought "independent" agencies to heel with increased presidential oversight. Also notable—though it has received little fanfare—is that late last year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear FCC v. Consumers' Research, a case that could shake the foundations of the modern administrative state.
Congress routinely passes vague, open-ended statutes, leaving major elements of policymaking to unelected bureaucrats. Unfortunately, courts have been reluctant to rule that Congress has delegated too much power to an agency since the New Deal. Cass Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard, once quipped that the so-called nondelegation doctrine "has had one good year"—1935, when the Supreme Court struck down two vague laws—and over 200 "bad ones."
However, a few years ago, several justices signaled a willingness to revive the nondelegation doctrine, and FCC v. Consumers' Research involves one of the most egregious examples of congressional abdication to an agency in modern memory.
After breaking up AT&T for holding a monopoly on local and long-distance phone service, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 254 of that law instructs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to create a financial "support" system to subsidize telecommunications services for favored constituencies, including rural households, schools, and libraries. Congress left it to the FCC to determine how to fund this subsidy program.
Notably, the law does not cap the amount of money the FCC can raise. Eventually, the FCC settled on collecting a fixed percentage of phone companies' long-distance service revenues and cutting checks to tech and telecom companies.
But the FCC doesn't actually exercise those powers. Instead, it delegates its rate-setting and disbursement functions to a private nonprofit called the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC)—an entity Congress never authorized in the statute. Comprised largely of industry insiders and subsidy recipients, the USAC has exploded the size of the universal service fund, from $753 million in 1996 to $8.4 billion in 2023. The USAC's regular exactions from phone companies and customers operate on autopilot. Indeed, it appears the FCC's passive approvals of USAC tax rates would continue even if the FCC lacked a quorum to conduct normal agency operations.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rightly struck down this accountability-shrouding subsidy program. The problem is simple: The Constitution grants the people's elected representatives in Congress "all legislative Powers," including the power "to lay and collect taxes." Representatives' obligation to stand for election constrains them from recklessly raising taxes, but the USAC—a private, unaccountable, and self-perpetuating nonprofit—faces no such restraint.
The stakes are high, and it is promising that the Supreme Court wants to weigh in. Its decision is expected this spring or summer.
The Constitution does not permit Congress to delegate its legislative powers, nor does it allow the government to empower a group of private citizens to exercise the sovereign power of taxation. Suppose Congress can offload its constitutional taxing and spending duties onto the FCC and USAC. What stops it from empowering grocers to set the food stamp budget, hospital executives to set the Medicare budget, or defense contractors to set the defense budget? Under the Constitution, Congress must make such difficult decisions itself—and face the people's judgment.
The Cato Institute authored an amicus brief in FCC v. Consumers' Research, supporting Consumers' Research.
The post The FCC and Its Private Taxman Go to Court appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
10 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Israeli strikes on Iran cap dramatic shift in Mideast strategic balance
JERUSALEM — While the world braces for President Donald Trump's decision on bombing Iran and the tectonic waves that could follow, here in the Middle East, the earthquake has already struck. Israel's go-for-broke attacks on Iran launched just over a week ago — after decades of intense but largely covert conflict between the two powers — have dramatically shifted the strategic balance in a way that will probably prevail whether American bombers enter the fray or not, according to analysts in Israel, across the region and beyond.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tulsi Gabbard Flips Sides in MAGA Civil War Over Iran's Nuclear Capabilities
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has flipped her stance on Iran after President Donald Trump nuked her intelligence as 'wrong.' Gabbard told the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 25 that there was no intelligence to suggest Iran was building nuclear weapons, though the country had enriched its uranium to higher levels. Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's June 12 'preemptive' strike on Iran—which he justified by saying that the country has a 'secret plan' to weaponize uranium—Trump sided with Israel's countervailing position. On two separate occasions this week, Trump rebuffed Gabbard's earlier assessment of Iran's nuclear program. 'I don't care what [Gabbard] said,' Trump said aboard Air Force One. 'I think they were very close to having one.' In another comment on Wednesday, the president added that Iran was 'a few weeks' away from turning their uranium into a weapon, echoing similar sentiments shared by Netanyahu. Then on Friday, Gabbard fell in line with Trump, attacking the media for having the gall to believe what she said. 'The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division,' Gabbard wrote to her 600K followers. 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly.' She added, 'President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree.' Gabbard included a clip of what she called her 'full testimony,' which has since racked up 8.9 million views. The world has been thrown into a state of limbo while Trump weighs a decision on whether to get the United States involved in strikes on Iran, a decision the country warned would be 'very dangerous.' In a statement read on Thursday by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Trump said he would make his decision 'within the next two weeks' based on the fact that there 'is a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' Reuters reported that the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with a group of European diplomats in Geneva on Friday for nuclear talks.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Top economist who previously sounded the alarm on tariffs sees a possible scenario where Trump ‘outsmarted all of us'
Torsten Sløk, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, laid out a potential scenario where President Donald Trump's tariffs are extended long enough to ease economic uncertainty while also providing a significant bump to federal revenue. That comes as the 90-day pause on Trump's 'reciprocal tariffs' is nearing an end. Businesses and consumers remain in limbo over what will happen next with President Donald Trump's tariffs, but a top economist sees a way to leave them in place and still deliver a 'victory for the world.' In a note on Saturday titled 'Has Trump Outsmarted Everyone on Tariffs?', Apollo Global Management Chief Economist Torsten Sløk laid out a scenario that keeps tariffs well below Trump's most aggressive rates long enough to ease uncertainty and avoid the economic harm that comes with it. 'Maybe the strategy is to maintain 30% tariffs on China and 10% tariffs on all other countries and then give all countries 12 months to lower non-tariff barriers and open up their economies to trade,' he speculated. That comes as the 90-day pause on Trump's 'reciprocal tariffs,' which triggered a massive selloff on global markets in April, is nearing an end early next month. The temporary reprieve was meant to give the U.S. and its trade partners time to negotiate deals. But aside from an agreement with the U.K. and another short-term deal with China to step back from prohibitively high tariffs, few others have been announced. Meanwhile, negotiations are ongoing with other top trading partners. Trump administration officials have been saying for weeks that the U.S. is close to reaching deals. On Saturday, Sløk said extending the deadline one year would give other countries and U.S. businesses more time to adjust to a 'new world with permanently higher tariffs.' An extension would also immediately reduce uncertainty, giving a boost to business planning, employment, and financial markets. 'This would seem like a victory for the world and yet would produce $400 billion of annual revenue for US taxpayers,' he added. 'Trade partners will be happy with only 10% tariffs and US tax revenue will go up. Maybe the administration has outsmarted all of us.' Sløk's speculation is notable as he previously sounded the alarm on Trump's tariffs. In April, he warned tariffs have the potential to trigger a recession by this summer. Also in April, before the U.S. and China reached a deal to temporarily halt triple-digit tariffs, he said the trade war between the two countries would pummel American small businesses. More certainty on tariffs would give the Federal Reserve a clearer view on inflation as well. For now, most policymakers are in wait-and-see mode, as tariffs are expected to have stagflationary effects. But a split has emerged. Fed Governor Christopher Waller said Friday that economic data could justify lower interest rates as early as next month, expecting only a one-off impact from tariffs. But San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly also said Friday a rate cut in the fall looks more appropriate, rather than a cut in July. Still, Sløk isn't alone in wondering whether Trump's tariffs may not be as harmful to the economy and financial markets as feared. Chris Harvey, Wells Fargo Securities' head of equity strategy, expects tariffs to settle in the 10%-12% range, low enough to have a minimal impact, and sees the S&P 500 soaring to 7,007, making him Wall Street's biggest bull. He added that it's still necessary to make progress on trade and reach deals with big economies like India, Japan and the EU. That way, markets can focus on next year, rather near-term tariff impacts. 'Then you can start to extrapolate out,' he told CNBC last month. 'Then the market starts looking through things. They start looking through any sort of economic slowdown or weakness, and then we start looking to '26 not at '25.' This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
