This case, before the D.C. Court of Appeals, just had oral arguments on the question whether the FCC has legitimate authority to impose its net-neutrality rules

This case, before the D.C. Court of Appeals, just had oral arguments on the question whether the FCC has legitimate authority to impose its net-neutrality rules. With a three-judge panel to render a decision, the FCC got some cold water thrown on it during the arguments. Chief Judge David Sentelle, addressing the FCC's claim that it had implied authority to impose the rules: "You can't get an unbridled, roving commission to go about doing good." Questioning the FCC's general counsel about where in the underlying communications statute (giving the FCC its ultimate authority) the agency could justify its order imposing an open-Internet policy, Judge A. Raymond Randolph said: "You have yet to identify a specific statute." (Judge Randolph repeatedly stated from the bench that the legal provisions cited by the FCC were mere policy statements that can't justify the FCC action.) That's two out of three judges expressing extreme skepticism about the FCC's authority to act as it did here. Having argued legal cases in just situations, I would say that, at least at this level, the FCC's action is very likely about to be struck down.