Tag Archives: FCC

When Chevron Meets the Hobbs Act: PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. (Part III)

by Bernard Bell — Thursday, Nov. 29, 2018

The worse day in a man’s life is when he sits down and begins thinking about how he can get something for nothing.  — Thomas Jefferson This concluding post of my three-part series regarding PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., Dkt. No. 17-1705 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), addresses the merits question the case […]

When Chevron Meets the Hobbs Act: PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. (Part II)

by Bernard Bell — Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2018

This is the second post in a three-part series regarding PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., Dkt No. 17-1705 (certiorari granted November 13, 2018).  This post addresses the question the case nominally presents — does the Hobbs Act require district courts to apply FCC regulations, even when the court believes they conflict […]

When Chevron Meets the Hobbs Act: PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. (Part I)

by Bernard Bell — Monday, Nov. 26, 2018

  “When Chevron meets Hobbs, consideration of the merits must yield to jurisdictional constraints.” Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network, 883 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2018) The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., Dkt No. 17-1705, (Order List Nov. 13, 2018).  The Court framed […]

Applying the “Deliberative Process Privilege” to Internal Agency Debates Regarding Communications Strategy

by Bernard Bell — Tuesday, Apr. 10, 2018

On December 14, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal its Obama-Era net neutrality rules.  The day before the vote, FCC Chair Ajit Pai appeared in a humorous and unconventional “Harlem Shake” video produced by the Daily Caller, a conservative website.  In the video, entitled “7 Things You Can Still Do After Net Neutrality,” […]

Justice Ginsburg in Encino

by Jeff Pojanowski — Tuesday, June 21, 2016

The administrative law professoriate is abuzz about the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Naravrro . The 6-2 majority vacated and remanded the 9th Circuit’s rejection of a challenge to a Department of Labor regulation that would have entitled certain car dealership employees to overtime pay. Legal academics and administrative lawyers presently […]

This entry was tagged .

D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed: No Net Neutrality … and the Dangers of “Moreover”

by Aaron Nielson — Saturday, May 28, 2016@Aaron_L_Nielson

Everyone, it seems, is waiting for the D.C. Circuit’s “net neutrality” decision. The case was argued last December and so could be decided anytime.* But it wasn’t decided this week. Although the D.C. Circuit’s only opinion this week did involve the FCC, and while it was authored by Judge Tatel, it wasn’t the big one […]

The FCC’s Upcoming Privacy Rules and the Fragmentation of Internet Regulation

by Daniel Deacon — Wednesday, Mar. 16, 2016

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it would soon release an NPRM on consumer privacy. According to the Commission’s “fact sheet,” the Notice will propose a number of requirements on broadband Internet Service Providers, including an obligation not to share customer information with non-affiliated services without first obtaining the customer’s express consent. I […]

Cabining FCC Jurisdiction to avoid Mission Creep

by Gus Hurwitz — Saturday, July 11, 2015

Daniel Deacon’s recent post and his essay in the Administrative Law Review raise several interesting – and potentially concerning, which is not to say wrong – points. Importantly, even though the vagaries of publication mean that his essay focuses on the FCC’s use of Section 706 to implement its Open Internet rules, whereas the FCC […]

That Other Basis for FCC Jurisdiction over the Internet

by Daniel Deacon — Wednesday, July 8, 2015

As Chris Walker noted recently on Twitter, the latest issue of the Administrative Law Review was kind to Notice and Comment bloggers. My own contribution has to do with a new basis for the FCC’s jurisdiction over Internet Protocol-based networks and services. And that basis is not Title II of the Communications Act, which has […]