Digital division agents can breathe a temporary sigh of facilitation, as the Supreme Court seemed to not want to dismantle the Universal Service Fund (USF), a program that spends nearly $ 9 billion a year to help low and rural Americans access to phone and internet, as well as schools.
Research by conservative non -profit consumers first brought its case against the Federal Communications Commission in 2022, but it feels especially at the moment. At the same time as the Trump administration Pressing for drastic changes For a $ 42 billion investment in rural broadband infrastructure, the Court's decision in the USF case has the potential to overcome subsidies for broadband for about 30 years.
The three liberal judges of the Supreme Court, plus Amy Connie Barett and Brett Cavanau, Did not seem swinging With the argument that the program is illegal or completely unverified by Congress.
“If I was a government, I would have felt pretty good at the moment,” Adam Crus, a law professor at Rutgers, who represented the FCC during the previous procedure, for Fenn. “It certainly didn't sound like there were five votes who wanted to support what the fifth round did.”
The USF has been in the embrace of the Conservatives for some time. In the 2025 project, Trump 2.0 Conservative Plan has Aggressively follow himFrom the appointed commissioner of the FCC, Brendan Carr has called for a new financing mechanism that would have great technology to contribute instead of telephone companies.
“The current approach of the FCC is the regulatory equivalent of the Horseshoe for highway payment”, Wrote the Carr in 2023.
But it is an open question whether Carr still has an appetite to ask technology companies to carry the USF account.
“He didn't even say a word after Trump was elected,” said Blair Levin, a former chief of the FCC office and a Newoo Street research industry analyst, for Fenn.
The court seems to not want to download the program
The legal short report submitted by consumer research image image of the work -maker – a group of unprotected tax officials of any size they consider to be fit.
“Congress has handed over his tax power to the FCC without objective or significant tax size restrictions,” Her lawyers wrote. “The FCC is driven by its own” aspirations “, and for a good measure Congress Let's allowing the agency to expand its own volume of authority at will.”
But the judges seemed to a large extent that they seemed motionless by this argument and encouraged the idea that there were no restrictions.
“The FCC cannot do anything through this program that is basically aimed at detaining those living in many rural areas or who are very low income, gain access to services that all of us have,” Kagan said.
Towards the end of the arguments, conservative justice Samuel Alito expressed concern about the impact of the verdict in the USF verdict.
“What would be the effect on people in rural areas if it is considered to be unconstitutional, and Congress does not act?” Alito asked.
Alito was considered one of the judges who are likely to rule the FCC, but his questions have led him in doubt.
“I thought it was very striking, because it suggests that even if he is compassionate at the position, he may not be ready to withdraw activation of it,” the teams said.
Perhaps more important than the questions were those that were not.
“The chief judge was very, very quiet,” the teams said. “His silence, I read how, he probably is more likely to stick to the status quo.”
What is the Universal Service Fund?
Drag your phone bill and make a Ctrl+F search for a “universal service”. You will probably see a few dollars for the program. The Federal Communications Commission is collecting money from telecommunications companies – not individuals – but standard practice is for them to transfer them to their clients.
This is a research point of consumer quarrels: The USF fee is an effective tax, and it's just something Congress has the power to do.
“The petition is wrong that the size of the more billions of dollars is stunning details that can be left to the agencies' bureaucrats to complete,” said consumer research. was arguing in his short.
At the heart of the USF case is an idea called “Universal Service”. The Law on Communications of 1934 stated that “All people in the United States have access to a fast, efficient, national communication service with appropriate facilities with reasonable costs.”
Updating the Law on Communications in 1996 was created by the USF, an independent program under the jurisdiction of the FCC that expanded the universal service to include broadband, besides phones.
The USF finances four programs that target different aspects of the digital part: Connect the American Fund (rural areas), Lifeline (low -income users), E-tap (schools and libraries) and Rural Health Care Program. It is driven by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USA), private non -profit.
“Do you really want to overthrow the program for 30 years because of some theoretical work?” Said Levin. “This is a very popular program, especially since it serves many Republicans.”
What's next?
We probably won't hear anything new about the USF case until the Supreme Court made its decision, probably at the end of June. If the court goes in the direction, it seems to be moving, the program will continue to be funded by a taxi tax in the near future. That said, the idea of financing online subsidies through phone taxes is probably uncertain long -term.
“The economic challenge – the increased needs of funding funded by the database of reducing revenue – was well understood for at least the last two administrations, but nothing, out of the Congress discussions, was not done to resolve it,” Levin wrote in the note to investors.
In the event of an exception of the court to determine that the USF financing mechanism is illegal, each number of potential paths will open. Will they give Congress and FCC time to reform the program or find alternative funding?
“I think they would like,” Levin said. “If you had to cut funding right now, I think there are a lot of rural telephone companies that would go bankrupt.”