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

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Congress did not violate the Constitution when it gave the FCC authority to collect money for the Universal Service Fund. The Court also found that the FCC can continue using a private company to help manage these collections because the agency keeps final control over all decisions. This decision reverses a lower court ruling that had threatened to shut down the multi-billion dollar program.

This ruling ensures that billions of dollars will continue to flow into programs that provide internet and phone service to rural areas, low-income families, and schools. If the Court had ruled the other way, millions of Americans in high-cost regions could have lost their connection to essential digital services. Telecommunications companies will also continue to pay the required fees that fund these national connectivity goals.

The case centered on the nondelegation doctrine (the legal idea that Congress cannot give away its core lawmaking powers to other groups). Critics argued that Congress gave the FCC too much 'blank check' power to tax and spend, but the Court found that the law provided enough specific instructions to be constitutional. This case is part of a larger debate over how much power federal agencies should have compared to elected officials.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the 6-3 majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson, and Sotomayor. Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito dissented, arguing the law gave away too much of Congress's taxing power.

“The Communications Act directs the FCC to collect contributions that are 'sufficient' to support universal-service programs, which sets both a floor and a ceiling on the agency’s authority.”

“Section 254 impermissibly delegates Congress’s taxing power by failing to set a tax rate or meaningful cap on collections.”

The Supreme Court upheld the FCC's system for funding universal internet and phone access, ruling that Congress provided enough guidance to make the delegation of power legal.

The case will return to the lower courts to officially end the legal challenge based on this ruling. Consumers should expect their phone and internet bills to continue including the Universal Service Fund fee as they have for decades. Legal experts will now look to see if this ruling slows down other attempts to use the nondelegation doctrine to limit federal agency power.

Consumers' Research argued that Congress illegally gave its taxing power to the FCC. They also claimed the FCC shouldn't let a private company help decide how much money to collect.

The ruling keeps the current system in place, so fees on phone bills will continue. These fees fund internet for schools, libraries, and rural areas that would otherwise be disconnected.

The Court applied the nondelegation doctrine, finding Congress provided 'determinate standards.' These standards, like serving rural areas and schools, meaningfully constrained the FCC's discretion and authority.

The Supreme Court reversed the previous decision and remanded (sent back) the case. Lower courts must now issue new orders that align with the Supreme Court's holding.

While the majority upheld the FCC's power, concurring opinions showed some justices remain concerned. They may be open to limiting agency power in future cases involving different laws.