CBAN Issue Brief - Impact of the Recent Supreme Court Ruling in the Chevron Case on FCC's Net Neutrality Implementation

The recent Supreme Court ruling in the Chevron case has profound implications for the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) ability to implement and enforce Net Neutrality regulations. The ruling centers on two key legal principles: the limitation of Chevron deference and the reinforcement of the major questions doctrine.

Chevron Deference
​Chevron deference is a legal principle that compels courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutes that the agency administers. Traditionally, this deference allowed the FCC to interpret the scope of its regulatory authority under the Telecommunications Act broadly, including implementing Net Neutrality rules.

Impact on Net Neutrality:

• Limitation of Deference: The Supreme Court's ruling significantly curtails the application of Chevron deference. Now, courts will not automatically defer to the FCC's interpretation of its statutory mandate regarding internet regulation.
• Increased Legal Scrutiny: The FCC must now provide clear statutory evidence that Congress intended to grant it the authority to impose Net Neutrality rules. This makes it more difficult for the FCC to justify its regulatory actions, as it can no longer rely on broad interpretations of its authority.

Major Questions Doctrine
​The major questions doctrine holds that courts should not defer to agencies on issues of vast economic and political significance unless Congress has clearly delegated such authority. This doctrine was a central point in the Supreme Court's ruling.

Impact on Net Neutrality:

• Requirement for Clear Authorization: The FCC must demonstrate that Congress explicitly authorized it to regulate internet service providers (ISPs) in the manner required for Net Neutrality. This presents a significant challenge, as existing legislation does not provide explicit authorization for such comprehensive internet regulation.
• Potential Legislative Gridlock: Given the current political climate and partisan divisions, obtaining new legislation that clearly delegates this authority to the FCC is unlikely. This leaves the FCC in a precarious position, unable to rely on existing statutes to defend its Net Neutrality rules.

Overall Impact
The Supreme Court's ruling fundamentally alters the FCC's regulatory landscape:

• Legal Vulnerability: Any new Net Neutrality rules proposed by the FCC will likely face immediate legal challenges. Opponents can argue that the FCC lacks the statutory authority to impose such regulations.
• Regulatory Uncertainty: The FCC's ability to ensure an open and fair internet is now more uncertain. Without clear congressional backing, the agency's efforts to prevent ISPs from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing traffic face significant obstacles.

Conclusion​
The Supreme Court's Chevron ruling restricts the FCC's interpretive authority and requires explicit congressional authorization for major regulatory actions. This significantly hampers the FCC's ability to implement and enforce Net Neutrality rules, posing a substantial challenge to maintaining an open and equitable internet.