Court Sets Deadlines in ICS Stay Case; Inmate Advocate Group Files Oppositions, Comments
Further motions to stay FCC inmate calling service rules should be filed by Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in a Wednesday order (Global Tel*Link v. FCC, No. 15-1461). The court granted an unopposed FCC…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
motion to file a 35-page consolidated response to stay motions by Feb. 12 (see 1602010027), and gave stay movants until Feb. 19 to file replies. Global Tel*Link, Securus Technologies and Telmate have asked the court to stay ICS rules pending further review of underlying challenges (see 1601270029 and 1601290067). In addition, CenturyLink has asked the commission to stay its own order (see 1601280033). The Martha Wright Petitioners, which prodded the FCC to issue the rules, filed opposition in docket 12-375, saying CenturyLink had provided no support for treating its request differently from the requests of the other three ICS providers, which the agency denied (see 1601220040). On a separate track, the Martha Wright Petitioners asked the FCC to deny a Global Tel*Link petition to waive GTL’s duty to comply by March 17 with a rule prohibiting ICS providers from requiring prison customers to have minimum balances in their accounts. GTL asked that compliance be delayed until a June 20 "no minimum balance requirement" deadline for ICS providers on jail customers. In a filing posted Thursday, the Martha Wright Petitioners asked the FCC to review “certain advice that is apparently being provided to governmental agencies” on the ICS rules that the group suggested appeared to be trying to bypass or game the rules. While the petitioners said they hadn’t confirmed the authorship of a document and aren't asserting it came from an ICS provider, they said the contents were “startling,” particularly in light of a recent Wireline Bureau letter to Securus that had cited the company’s “mischaracterization” of the rules and had warned the agency would remain vigilant in monitoring industry implementation (see 1512040001).