Verizon Net Neutrality Case Rejected

Back in January, we discussed news that Verizon had filed an appeal to the FCC's net neutrality rules, saying the regulatory agency did not have the legal authority to enforce the mandate. Now, reader olsmeister follows up with this quote from PC World: "An appeals court Monday dismissed Verizon's challenge of the US Federal Communications Commission's December net neutrality ruling, calling it premature. A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia noted in its decision that the FCC's net neutrality order is a rule-making document subject to judicial review once it is published in the Federal Register. The panel said that the appeal's 'prematurity is incurable.'"

Super pre-mature

[proverbialcow]

...considering that even if it were published, and passed judicial review, the House passed an amendment to a spending bill [slashdot.org] that would bar any funding to enforcement.

Rejected on standing, not on the merits (and why)

[Wrath0fb0b]

The US Courts have a very strong tendency to take matters of standing seriously -- nearly every opinion will start with the question "Does this court have the jurisdiction (either by the Constitution or by statute) to take up this case?". In most cases, this is a good thing since it grounds the scope of the courts to their intended purpose. (BTW, the notion of limited scope is distinct from curtailing the power of the courts, which is quite wide provided that the matter is within their purview at all -- many seem to forget the distinction).

Since the case is statutory under the APA [wikipedia.org] and the APA provides for judicial review of "final actions" (which makes some sense - Congress wanted the court to have oversight over agency policy not agency procedure), Verizon cannot appeal the decision to adopt net neutrality rules until they become final.

Since the FCC is very likely to go through with publishing the rules, Verizon will get a chance to challenege them on the merits as not being within the power granted to the FCC by Congress. Eventually, anyway.

Re:Super pre-mature

[fnj]

Don't you get it? For bills of a funding nature, the Senate has no say whatsoever. Funding legislation must originate in the House (unless our Masters in Washington just continue to ignore the Constitution, which makes all bets off). The House has the power of the purse. Say the House does not fund something. The Senate can't up and originate a bill funding it, and even if they try, it would still have to pass the House (AND the President) before it becomes law. It's a C language compound-or statement. The first term that evaluates false terminates the evaluation with false.

The House has been passing a lot of batshit crazy bills that will never make it out of the Senate.

Re:Super pre-mature

[sumdumass]

It's a hold over from the original intent of the senate. The senate was originally supposed to represent the state, not half the people of the state. So even with the legislature being bicameral, the balance between them was between the people who had representatives and states who had senators.

The concept was about the representatives of the people being the only ones to initiate taxing the people. That's sort of lost now with the senate being voted directly by the people and not appointed by the state legislatures.