The question
Whether the way Congress funds the Universal Service Fund, which subsidizes phone and internet service, unconstitutionally delegates legislative power.
FCC v. Consumers’ Research
What the Court decided
The Court upheld the funding mechanism for the Universal Service Fund, which supports phone and broadband service in rural and low-income areas. It held that Congress did not unconstitutionally hand off its legislative power when it directed the FCC, working with a private administrator, to collect contributions from carriers.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Kagan, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
Congress gave the FCC an intelligible principle to guide how it funds universal service, and relying on a private administrator to do the arithmetic does not transfer legislative power. The scheme fits a long line of decisions upholding broad delegations of authority to agencies.
Concurring
Kavanaugh, writing alone
Kavanaugh joined and wrote separately on the limits of the nondelegation doctrine.
Dissenting
Gorsuch, joined by Thomas, Alito
The dissent argued the arrangement lets an agency, and a private body, set what amounts to a tax with no real limit from Congress, and that this is exactly the kind of open-ended delegation the Constitution forbids.
How we know · 3 sourced claims
The Court held the Universal Service Fund contribution scheme does not violate the nondelegation doctrine.
Source: syllabus, Held, at 24-354
The Court found Congress supplied an intelligible principle to guide the FCC.
Source: opinion of the Court (Kagan, J.)
Kagan, J., wrote for the Court; Gorsuch, J., dissented, joined by Thomas and Alito, JJ.
Source: syllabus, lineup