On Aug. 6, Boyden Gray & Associates filed a brief in the D.C. Circuit, challenging the FCC’s unprecedented power grab over the Internet. In U.S. Telecom Association v. FCC, Nos. 15-1063 et al., several parties challenging the FCC’s decision to regulate the Internet as a common carrier.
BG&A filed on behalf of Intervenors challenging the FCC. Specifically, we filed on behalf of TechFreedom, Cari.net (a cloud computing company), and a group of prominent tech entrepreneurs–Jeff Pulver, Scott Banister, Charles Giancarlo, Wendell Brown, and David Frankel–who have contributed significantly to the development of “Internet telephony” and other technologies that help people and companies benefit from broadband Internet.
The Intervenors support the arguments advanced by US Telecom, Alamo Broadband, and other petitioners, but our brief focused on some of the more fundamental constitutional values that inform the proper interpretation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Communications Act of 1934. Specifically, we argued that the “major questions” doctrine (of FDA v. Brown & Williamson and King v. Burwell), the excessive-tailoring doctrine (of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA), and the “significant risk” doctrine (of the Benzene Cases) all illustrate why Congress must not be presumed to have delegated such open-ended authority to the FCC. And, for similar reasons, the FCC’s statutory interpretations must not receive Chevron deference from the Court.
This brief reflects BG&A’s latest effort to emphasize the fundamental constitutional values that undergird statutory interpretation and administrative law. It follows BG&A’s briefs in King v. Burwell, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, and other significant Supreme Court and appellate cases.