Most Parties Agree to Briefing Proposal for FCC Net Neutrality Rollback Case in DC Circuit
Most net neutrality litigants agreed to a proposed briefing format and schedule running from August through November, said a motion (in Pacer) Wednesday of petitioners and intervenors challenging the FCC broadband reclassification order. Sixteen groups of petitioners and seven supporting…
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.
intervenors made the proposal, with word limits, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Mozilla v. FCC, No. 18-1051. They said respondents FCC and DOJ consented, but intervenors supporting the FCC plus intervenor Digital Justice Foundation (DJF), which supports neither side, didn't. "The proposed format accommodates the divergent interests of the various parties to this complex appeal," said the motion. "It ensures consolidation among parties wherever the differences in position are possible to bridge." Petitioner briefs would be due Aug. 20; their supporting intervenor and DJF briefs Aug. 27; the FCC/DOJ brief Oct. 11; FCC-supporting intervenor briefs Oct.18; and petitioner and supporting intervenor briefs Nov. 16. The motion noted respondents didn't agree with its "characterization or description of the issues presented by or the procedural history of the case." It also included a statement from ISP intervenors that support the FCC -- the American Cable Association, CTIA, NCTA, USTelecom and Wireless ISP Association -- asking for "sufficient words to respond to all the arguments" of petitioners, akin to what the court provided intervenors in litigation over the FCC 2015 net neutrality order and consistent with an updated rule. The DJF asked (in Pacer) to be allowed to file a reply brief: "No other party (1) supports net neutrality as a policy goal, (2) believes that the 2015 net-neutrality rules had certain statutory defects nonetheless, (3) believes the ... Order's repeal of the conduct rules and reclassification is within [FCC] discretion ..., but (4) believes that the Order's transparency and preemption provisions are unlawful, at least in part."