Net neutrality reinstatement temporarily halted by appeals court

A federal appeals court agreed to stay the rollback of net neutrality rules until August 5 while the court considers whether more permanent action is warranted.

It’s the latest blow in a long fight over net neutrality — the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) shouldn’t be able to block or throttle internet traffic in a discriminatory manner. The Federal Communications Commission sought to achieve that by reclassifying internet service providers under Title II of the Communications Act, which gives the agency more regulatory oversight. The Democratic-led agency enacted net neutrality rules under Obama, but those rules were repealed by Trump’s FCC. The current FCC, which has three Democratic and two Republican commissioners, voted in April to restore net neutrality in a 3-2 vote that split along party lines.

Broadband providers have challenged the FCC’s actions, which are potentially more vulnerable to attack after the Supreme Court’s recent decision to invalidate the Chevron deference rule, a legal doctrine that required courts to defer to the agency’s expert decisions except in a very narrow range of circumstances. Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Matt Schettenhelm said in a report ahead of the court ruling that he did not expect the FCC to prevail in court, largely because of the fallout Chevron.

A panel of judges from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said in an order that a temporary “administrative stay is warranted” while it considers the merits of the broadband providers’ request for a permanent stay. The administrative stay will remain in effect until Aug. 5. In the meantime, the court asked the parties to submit additional briefs on the application National Cable and Telecommunications Association vs. Brand X Internet Services to this lawsuit. Brand X is a 2005 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC had lawfully interpreted the Communications Act to exclude cable broadband internet providers from the definition of “telecommunications services.” At the time, SCOTUS said the lower court should have followed Chevronand left it to the agency’s interpretation.