4 ms·

Aware that this comment is wading dangerously into U.S. politics - will the recent Supreme Court decisions w/r/t the powers of executive branch agencies like th

Aware that this comment is wading dangerously into U.S. politics - will the recent Supreme Court decisions w/r/t the powers of executive branch agencies like the FCC make it impossible to enforce this? Edit - this from the article makes me thing that maybe it'll be OK? Sounds like there was some congressional approval involved? > The regulations adopted today mark the implementation of the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act, which established the FCC’s authority to regulate in-state phone and video calls from correctional facilities, in addition to out-of-state phone calls that it had already regulated. The discussion during today's vote will result in only minor changes to the draft rules released on June 27, and be released in the coming days.

ghufran_syed 2y ago
yeah, “chevron deference” was only really an issue with ambiguously written laws IMO, or agencies taking an overly expansive view of their authority. And they still can, but now those decisions can be challenged in court. good summary here: https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/chevron-is-out-of-gas-will-it-fuel-changes-to-the-fcc/ https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/chevron-is-out-of-gas-wil...
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Which means a denial of service attack on the system is most certainly coming via that jurisdiction in Texas that has the single judge who loves issuing national injunctions.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think people misunderstand the deference standard that was actually overturned and explaining looper helps
jvanderbot 2y ago
Ultimately I believe it will be enforced, and then potentially challenged in court. This seems to be the path for most regulation in the USA. So the question always is "Who will challenge this?" because as you point out, it has become easier for challenges to regulations to succeed (at least in theory).
- kranke155 2y ago
  Some kind of phone telecom funded pseudo grassroots lobby group.
caustic-view 2y ago
[dead]
variant 2y ago
Doubtful, but if it isn't authorized by statute, a law should be passed not regulation.
jmyeet 2y ago
You raise a fair point. Here's the Act [1] and 47 USC 276 [2] in full, (b)(1)(A) (emphasis added): > (A)establish a compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated, and all rates and charges are just and reasonable, for completed intrastate and interstate communications using their payphone or other calling device, except that emergency calls and telecommunications relay service calls for hearing disabled individuals shall not be subject to such compensation; What does "just and reasonable" mean? With Chevron deference, courts would have to defer to the FCC on this. Now they don't. Now Chevron deference is a bigger issue when laws are written more broadly and vaguely like "the EPA should ensure the air is clean". We had 40 years of Congress over multiple administrations deliberately writing laws to defer to Federal agencies. But a prison telco could still bring suit arguing the rates are not "just and reasonable". [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1541/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/154... [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/276 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/276
- jerf 2y ago
  It is important to remember that removing the Chevron defense is not some unknown situation we've never seen before. It is a return to the status quo from before that case, and that was not a situation where every last regulation was instantly tied up in litigation on the theory that when Congress said "set just and reasonable price limits on prisoner comms" they actually meant "do nothing unless every sentence from the regulatory agency has been reviewed by the Supreme Court". The higher courts are all rate-limited by their time and after an initial burst of relitigation on the limits of regulation, we're going to settle into a status quo where federal agencies still have reasonable abilities to implement Congressional dictates, because the higher courts are going to start to refuse to hear cases that are clearly just "industry does not like being regulated in clear compliance with Congressional mandate". A prison telco can bring any suit they like, but it's not like the removal of the Chevron defense requires the court to accept the case and laboriously work out an exact definition just because the prison telco wants them to. Courts aren't going to want to do this, especially the higher ones.
  - 2y ago
qingcharles 2y ago
Trump installed the major prison phone system's ex-lawyer as the head of the FCC last time he got in, just before the prison call price drop was about to be implemented under an Obama-era decision: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/in-the-news/2017/hrdc-says-fcc-chairman-has-conflict-interest-over-securus-connection/ https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/in-the-news/2017/hrdc-says-f...
mywittyname 2y ago
> will the recent Supreme Court decisions w/r/t the powers of executive branch agencies like the FCC make it impossible to enforce this? They will rule exactly how everyone expects them to rule. They might provide the flimsiest of justifications for doing so, or they will just say it's within their absolute authority to do so.

ghufran_syed 2y ago

yeah, “chevron deference” was only really an issue with ambiguously written laws IMO, or agencies taking an overly expansive view of their authority. And they still can, but now those decisions can be challenged in court. good summary here: https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/chevron-is-out-of-gas-will-it-fuel-changes-to-the-fcc/ https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/chevron-is-out-of-gas-wil...

ceejayoz 2y ago
Which means a denial of service attack on the system is most certainly coming via that jurisdiction in Texas that has the single judge who loves issuing national injunctions.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think people misunderstand the deference standard that was actually overturned and explaining looper helps

jvanderbot 2y ago

Ultimately I believe it will be enforced, and then potentially challenged in court. This seems to be the path for most regulation in the USA. So the question always is "Who will challenge this?" because as you point out, it has become easier for challenges to regulations to succeed (at least in theory).

kranke155 2y ago
Some kind of phone telecom funded pseudo grassroots lobby group.

caustic-view 2y ago

[dead]

variant 2y ago

Doubtful, but if it isn't authorized by statute, a law should be passed not regulation.

jmyeet 2y ago

You raise a fair point. Here's the Act [1] and 47 USC 276 [2] in full, (b)(1)(A) (emphasis added): > (A)establish a compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated, and all rates and charges are just and reasonable, for completed intrastate and interstate communications using their payphone or other calling device, except that emergency calls and telecommunications relay service calls for hearing disabled individuals shall not be subject to such compensation; What does "just and reasonable" mean? With Chevron deference, courts would have to defer to the FCC on this. Now they don't. Now Chevron deference is a bigger issue when laws are written more broadly and vaguely like "the EPA should ensure the air is clean". We had 40 years of Congress over multiple administrations deliberately writing laws to defer to Federal agencies. But a prison telco could still bring suit arguing the rates are not "just and reasonable". [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1541/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/154... [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/276 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/276

jerf 2y ago
It is important to remember that removing the Chevron defense is not some unknown situation we've never seen before. It is a return to the status quo from before that case, and that was not a situation where every last regulation was instantly tied up in litigation on the theory that when Congress said "set just and reasonable price limits on prisoner comms" they actually meant "do nothing unless every sentence from the regulatory agency has been reviewed by the Supreme Court". The higher courts are all rate-limited by their time and after an initial burst of relitigation on the limits of regulation, we're going to settle into a status quo where federal agencies still have reasonable abilities to implement Congressional dictates, because the higher courts are going to start to refuse to hear cases that are clearly just "industry does not like being regulated in clear compliance with Congressional mandate". A prison telco can bring any suit they like, but it's not like the removal of the Chevron defense requires the court to accept the case and laboriously work out an exact definition just because the prison telco wants them to. Courts aren't going to want to do this, especially the higher ones.
- 2y ago

qingcharles 2y ago

Trump installed the major prison phone system's ex-lawyer as the head of the FCC last time he got in, just before the prison call price drop was about to be implemented under an Obama-era decision: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/in-the-news/2017/hrdc-says-fcc-chairman-has-conflict-interest-over-securus-connection/ https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/in-the-news/2017/hrdc-says-f...

mywittyname 2y ago

> will the recent Supreme Court decisions w/r/t the powers of executive branch agencies like the FCC make it impossible to enforce this? They will rule exactly how everyone expects them to rule. They might provide the flimsiest of justifications for doing so, or they will just say it's within their absolute authority to do so.