ISPs Seek Feb. Brief to 2nd Circuit; 22 States Back NY Affordability Law
ISP associations asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit of Appeals to require their brief by Feb. 23 on New York’s appeal of a lower court rejecting the state’s broadband affordability law, in letters Monday in case 21-1975 from the Satellite Broadcasting…
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.
and Communications Association, New York State Telecommunications Association, CTIA, USTelecom and NTCA. U.S. District Court in Central Islip, New York, temporarily blocked the state law earlier this year, ruling ISPs would likely succeed on conflict and field preemption arguments (see 2107230044). Last week, in an amicus brief, California, Illinois, 20 other states and the District of Columbia said they “seek to defend New York’s sovereign right to exercise its police powers against Plaintiffs’ unwarranted assertions of federal preemption.” Amici “regularly exercise their sovereign authority to enact and enforce numerous laws applicable to broadband providers and other online businesses,” including laws “aimed at securing their residents’ access to vital goods and services,” they said. “There is nothing about the Internet that necessitates a departure from that normal state of affairs, and certainly nothing that warrants it in the absence of clear direction from Congress.” In other amici filings, the Benton Institute and Public Knowledge said the New York law is “a targeted and state-specific regulatory response to the problem of the digital divide.” Access Now, the National Digital Inclusion Alliance and others said federal “programs, while being helpful and effective, have not fully solved" the "broadband affordability problem.” The Greenlining Institute said states “have long played an essential role in regulating both interstate and intrastate communications, both as an exercise of their inherent sovereign police powers and within a federal statutory framework that leaves room to adapt communications law and policies to local concerns.” The district court's field preemption claim, if affirmed, "would invalidate vital state laws regulating areas of traditional local concern -- including consumer protection, public health, and public safety,” wrote seven internet law professors including Harvard Law School’s Lawrence Lessig and Stanford Law School’s Barbara van Schewick. It would “leave both the FCC and the states without regulatory authority, leaving Americans wholly unprotected from harms by interstate communications providers,” they said.