In the end, the return of net neutrality was short-lived: Today, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down rules introduced by the Biden administration that would have prevented Internet service providers from favoring certain apps or websites over others. It’s the culmination of a decades-long fight for a more equitable Internet — and what more consumer protections may await in the coming years.
It’s easy to get lost in the technicalities Net neutralityBut the basic thing the Federal Communications Commission wanted was the power to prevent broadband providers from engaging in bandwidth discrimination, slowing down speeds for some customers or for some sites. Those safeguards existed under the Obama administration, but were turned back Shortly after Donald Trump took office in 2017. You probably won’t feel the impact very closely; We’re largely back to status quo, and Spectrum isn’t likely to immediately try to slow down YouTube so you can watch your cable news channels. But that’s also why the way the Sixth Circuit reached its decision may be even more troubling than the ruling.
A panel of three judges is often cited Loper Bright enters. v. RaimondoA recent Supreme Court decision overturned a legal principle known as Chevron deference. subject to ChevronCourts were required to defer to regulatory agencies when it came to deciding how relevant statutes should be interpreted when their provisions were ambiguous. Now, the courts are free to decide for themselves. And the Sixth Circuit did exactly that.
“Unlike past challenges that were considered by the D.C. Circuit under Chevron, we no longer value the FCC’s reading of the statute,” the ruling reads. “Instead, our task is to determine the ‘best reading of the statute’ in the first instance.”
In other words, the court replaced the FCC’s subject matter expertise with its own.
“It’s a sad day for democracy when giant corporations can forum-shop for pro-industry judges to strike down some of the most popular consumer protection rules in history,” said Evan Greer, director of digital rights nonprofit Fight for the Future. says the director of “Citing Loper Bright here is an alarming harbinger of pro-industry decisions to come.”
And not just on issues affecting the broadband industry. The Sixth Circuit showed today how courts can use the end of Chevron deference to shape all kinds of policy, from technology to the environment to health care, pretty much any area where legislative ambiguity reigns.
Chevron’s critics argue that Congress too often assigns the task of interpreting policies to unelected bureaucrats who work for federal agencies, says John Bergmeyer, legal director of the consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Knowledge. “Now we have a choice: The first panel of judges to hear an issue can set nationwide policy.”
There is at least one way around this imbalance of power, Bergmeyer says: Congress could pass a bill that clearly says agencies have the authority to interpret laws. That seems unlikely, however, in a GOP-led legislature wary of — or outright hostile to — the administrative state.
