WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed likely to preserve the $8 billion a year the government spends to subsidize phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas.
The justices heard nearly three hours of arguments in a new test of federal regulatory power, reviewing an appellate ruling that struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the tax that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years.
Liberal and conservative justices alike said they were concerned about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund that has benefited tens of millions of Americans.
The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers.
A conservative advocacy group, Consumer Research, challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumer Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation’s most conservative, ruled 9-7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional.
The 5th Circuit held that Congress has given too much authority to the FCC and the agency in turn has ceded too much power to a private entity, or administrator.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the FCC subsidies cover only phone and internet services. “It a very real constraint. They are the only two services that have been identified,” Sotomayor said.
Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed most supportive of the challengers, calling the fund “a tax that’s unlike any other tax this court has ever approved.”
The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the nondelegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine.
The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address “major questions,” in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to combat climate change.
“This is simply not the right case for the court to revamp the nondelegation doctrine,” lawyer Paul Clement told the justices on behalf associations of telecommunications companies.
The Trump administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, is defending the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by the Biden administration.
“Neither Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC, the FCC’s reliance on advice from the administrator, nor the combination of the two violates the Constitution,” acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in a Supreme Court brief.
Consumer Research calls the situation a “nightmare scenario” in which Congress has set no limits on how much the FCC can raise to fund the program. “Predictably, the USF tax rate has skyrocketed. It was under 4% in 1998 but now approaches 37%,” lawyers for the group wrote.
They said there is an easy fix: Congress can appropriate money for the program, or at least set a limit on how much can be spent, even in the trillions of dollars.
But several justices said that Congress could satisfy objections by setting an astronomically high figure that provides no real limit. “That sounds like a meaningless exercise,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said.
But last year, Congress let funding lapse for an internet subsidy program, the Affordable Connectivity Program, and the FCC moved to fill the gap by providing money from the E-rate program, one of several funded by the Universal Service Fund.
Congress created the Universal Service Fund as part of its overhaul of the telecommunications industry in 1996, aimed at promoting competition and eliminating monopolies. The subsidies for rural and low-income areas were meant to ensure that phone and internet services would remain affordable.
A decision is expected by late June.
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Vermont’s child welfare agency has asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit alleging the state routinely targets and tracks pregnant women deemed unsuitable for motherhood.
The Department for Children and Families filed the request Monday, two months after it was sued by a woman who claims the state secretly investigated her when she was pregnant and won custody of her daughter before the baby was born. The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont and the Pregnancy Justice advocacy group, seeks both an end to what it calls an illegal surveillance program and unspecified monetary damages for the woman, who is identified only by her initials, A.V.
According to the complaint, the director of a homeless shelter where A.V. briefly stayed in January 2022 told the child welfare agency that she appeared to have untreated paranoia, dissociative behaviors and post-traumatic stress disorder. The state opened an investigation and later spoke to the woman’s counselor, midwife and hospital social worker. The suit alleges the state received updates from the hospital and won temporary custody of the fetus while she was in labor and then immediately took the baby away when she was born.
According to the lawsuit, the state had no jurisdiction before the baby was born, an argument the state rebuts in its filing.
“DCF is tasked with the difficult and delicate task of balancing the need to protect children from potential abuse and neglect against disruptions to families,” wrote Assistant Attorney General David Groff. “Given its mission, DCF has the authority to investigate potential abuse to a soon-to-be-born child before the child is born. DCF need not wait for harm to occur after birth.”
The state argues that its family court system has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a child needs care or supervision, and that the plaintiff can’t relitigate custody decisions via a lawsuit. The motion neither confirms nor denies the existence of a “pregnancy calendar” used to track women, but says A.V. lacks standing to challenge it because she was never part of such a calendar and doesn’t claim to have been.
The lawsuit also names the hospital where the woman gave birth and a counseling center where she sought treatment as defendants. Lund, the counseling center, has also filed a motion to dismiss the case. In its response to the suit, Copley Hospital said it cooperated with the state’s investigation as required under state law. The hospital denied that it illegally disclosed confidential medical information about A.V. or that it routinely collects and disseminates sensitive information about pregnant patients.
Kroger is denying Albertsons’ claims that it didn’t do enough to ensure regulatory approval of the companies’ planned supermarket merger.
In court papers filed Tuesday in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Kroger said Albertsons disregarded the companies’ merger agreement and worked secretly with a partner, C&S Wholesalers, to try to force Kroger to divest more stores to C&S.
Kroger also claimed that Albertsons was secretly planning to sue Kroger if the deal didn’t go through long before the merger actually fell apart in December. Kroger said in Tuesday’s court filing that it should not be forced to pay Albertsons a $600 million termination fee as well as billions of dollars in legal fees.
In a statement Tuesday, Albertsons said it was Kroger that failed to honor the merger agreement.
“Kroger’s self-interested conduct doomed the merger, and we are now focused on returning value to Albertsons’ shareholders to compensate for those losses,” Albertsons said.
Kroger and Albertsons first proposed the merger in 2022. They argued that combining would help them better compete with big retailers like Walmart and Costco.
But the Federal Trade Commission and two states — Washington and Colorado — sued to block the merger last year, saying it would raise prices and lower workers’ wages by eliminating competition. It also said Kroger and Albertsons’ plan to divest 579 stores C&S Wholesalers was inadequate to ensure competition, since C&S was ill-equipped to take on so many stores.
In December, judges in Washington and Oregon halted the merger in two rulings issued within hours of each other.
Kroger said even after lower courts ruled, it believed the merger still had a chance of going through. Kroger said it told Albertsons it was planning to re-engage with the FTC after President Donald Trump’s election because it thought the FTC under Trump would be less hostile to mergers.
But instead, Albertsons filed a lawsuit against Kroger the day after the lower court rulings. Albertsons said Kroger refused to divest more stores, even as it became clear that regulators weren’t satisfied with its plans. Albertsons said Kroger also should have sought other buyers beyond C&S to satisfy regulators’ concerns.
NEW YORK (AP) — Someone tucked a heart-shaped note of encouragement into socks packed for Luigi Mangione to wear to court last month in the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder case, prosecutors said in a filing made public on Wednesday.
A court officer intercepted the note, which urged the jailed defendant to “know there are thousands of people wishing you luck,” Manhattan prosecutors wrote in responding to recent requests from Mangione’s defense lawyers.
They include a bid for him to get a laptop to review legal material in his cell while he awaits trial in the December shooting death of Brian Thompson, 50. Thompson was killed outside a midtown hotel where the health insurer was holding an investor conference.
Mangione, 26, has pleaded not guilty. A message seeking comment on prosecutors’ filing was sent to his lawyers.
Objecting to the proposed laptop as a request for unmerited special treatment, prosecutor Joel Seidemann wrote “special treatment to the defendant’s benefit was violated when (prosecutors) made accommodations for defendant’s fashion needs during the last court appearance.”
Most jailed defendants wear jail uniforms at routine court dates when there’s no jury present, the prosecutor explained. Mangione, however, was allowed to change into clothes brought by his legal team for the Feb. 21 hearing.
Mangione has attracted a cult following as a stand-in for frustrations over health insurance coverage denials and hefty medical bills, and dozens of his supporters showed up for the hearing. One sported a green “Luigi” hat from the “Mario Bros.” video game franchise and many wore green, the Luigi character’s color, as a symbol of solidarity.
Some elected officials and others have decried the fascination with Mangione as glorifying violence and vigilantism.
The note — plus another heart-shaped message addressed to someone called “Joan” — was hidden in a piece of cardboard at the center of a new pair of Argyle socks, Seidemann wrote. It’s not clear who wrote the note or slipped it into the socks. The filing didn’t say, and prosecutors later declined to elaborate.
Mangione donned the socks but later took them off “because he felt that ‘they did not look good,’” according to Seidemann.
Mangione appeared in court in loafers, his bare ankles shackled.
