Supreme Court rejects net neutrality appeal

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

an hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ended the court fight over repealed Obama-era “net neutrality” rules that required internet providers to treat all online traffic equally.

The court on Monday rejected appeals from the telecommunications industry seeking to throw out a lower court ruling in favor of the “net neutrality” rules. The Federal Communications Commission under President Donald Trump has rolled back the rules, but the industry also wanted to wipe the court ruling off the books.

Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have granted the industry’s request. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh took no part in the case without offering a reason.

Kavanaugh ruled on the issue while an appeals court judge and Roberts has an investment portfolio that includes telecommunications companies.


Read more: https://apnews.com/b4a752ff50c9404c977e38bc6fe79b42

---

Short article. No more at link.

[Calista241]

1. Both Roberts and Kavanaugh recused themselves from the case. n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. So this is good news if I am reading this correctly. n/t

[elmac]

3. It means that if we boot the fascists completely out in '20

we can replace the fascist FCC chair and reinstate net neutrality without dealing with the fascist supreme court.

[rurallib]

5. I have looked all over for interpretation

I am thoroughly confused by this.

Here is another story from Apple which favors net neutrality:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/11/05/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-net-neutrality-appeal-overturn

[FakeNoose]

6. The ISPs already got what they wanted

They don't really care about the "net neutrality" issue, and they aren't fighting. All they wanted was to charge more for the high-speed priority connections, and let all the free or cheap connections go as slow as molasses. That's what the ruling was all about from the get-go.

The net neutrality they're talking about now has to do with preventing users from accessing websites that might be a competitor, or might be socially or politically less acceptable. That's already being managed by Facebook, Google, Microsoft and others because they want you looking at THEIR ads, not somebody else's. Yeah OK the net neutrality is still in effect but Google makes money every time you use their search engine and click on their ads. They'll still try to discourage you from going to Microsoft's search site, and vice versa.

[dixiegrrrrl]

9. Ads???? I see no ads...

I am a huge fan of ad-blockers. Our connection is poor enough without ads eating up the page loading minutes.

But, yes, I take your meaning.

[Princess Turandot]

4. A (very) little more from SCOTUSblog...

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/divided-court-denies-review-in-net-neutrality-cases/#more-277003

The rules, which were issued in 2015, have since been replaced by a 2018 order by the Federal Communications Commission eliminating net neutrality, so the justices were not expected to weigh in on the merits of these cases. Instead, the real question was the fate of the D.C. Circuit’s decision upholding the rules: Would the Supreme Court allow it to stand – which would mean that it could serve as precedent for future cases – or would the justices instead invalidate the D.C. Circuit’s decision and send it back with directions to dismiss the cases as moot (a doctrine known as Munsingwear vacatur), because the net neutrality rules are no longer in effect?

Today, over a year after the petitions seeking review of the D.C. Circuit’s decision were filed, a divided Supreme Court simply declined to consider the cases, leaving the D.C. Circuit’s decision in place. The court’s newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh, was expected to recuse himself from voting on the petitions because he had participated in the cases while on the D.C. Circuit, and he did. But Chief Justice John Roberts also recused himself – presumably (although there is no way to know for sure) because he owns stock in one of the companies challenging the rules.

With Roberts and Kavanaugh both recused, that left only seven justices. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch indicated that they would have opted for Munsingwear vacatur, which would have left the D.C. Circuit’s ruling without any precedential value. But they would have needed at least one more vote for that result, which they were apparently not able to get with Roberts and Kavanaugh recused.

[iluvtennis]

7. Reuters article - looks like DC Court of appeals ruling to preserve net neutrality is left as is

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-netneutrality/us-supreme-court-ends-fight-over-obama-era-net-neutrality-rules-idUSKCN1NA1UW

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The legal fight over a 2016 lower court ruling upholding Obama-era net neutrality regulations aimed at ensuring a free and open internet - rules that have since been repealed by President Donald Trump’s administration - came to a formal end on Monday, with the U.S. Supreme Court declining to take up the matter.

The Trump administration and internet service providers had asked to justices to wipe away the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that had temporarily preserved the net neutrality regulations championed by Democratic former President Barack Obama. But the justices refused to hear the appeals, leaving the lower court ruling in place.


The Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 in December along party lines to reverse the rules adopted under Obama in 2015 that had barred internet service providers from blocking or throttling traffic, or offering paid fast lanes, also known as paid prioritization.

Obama’s rules, intended to safeguard equal access to content on the internet, were opposed by Trump, a Republican.

The new FCC rules went into effect in June. They give internet service providers greater power to regulate the content that customers access, are now the subject of a separate legal fight after being challenged by many of the groups that backed net neutrality.

....continued at link

----
DU lawyers/other legal eagles - what's your take on this.

I live in Ca where Governor Brown put net neutrality back in place for us earlier this year. But this is GREAT news for the rest of the nation. Trump/thugs can't cause use to pay more for internet access.

[riversedge]

8. ...Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said the ruling marked an important win for net neutrality advocates.

Well, we have this Senator who is pleased.




https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/u-s-supreme-court-declines-net-neutrality-appeal-n931331
...Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said the ruling marked an important win for net neutrality advocates.

"“The FCC’s Open Internet Order is regarded as settled law by the courts, and that is what today’s decision by the Supreme Court really means," Markey said in an emailed statement. "This is an important win for the internet and all Americans who support strong net neutrality rules."