FCC Stands Firmly Behind Motion to Transfer Net Neutrality Challenges to D.C. Circuit
The FCC’s motion that would transfer the consolidated challenges of the commission’s net neutrality order to the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit (see 2406100044) is part of a trend of federal agencies that attempt to use venue-transfer motions…
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.
“to steer major regulatory challenges out of the regional circuits,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a 6th Circuit amicus brief Friday in opposition (dockets 24-7000, 24-3449, 24-3450, 24-3497, 24-3504, 24-3507, 24-3508, 24-3510, 24-3511, 24-3517, 24-3519, 24-3538). This trend harms litigants and courts as it saddles them with “burdensome threshold litigation” in cases that often already involve “fast-paced litigation over stays and other interim relief,” the chamber said. In addition, the trend harms the regulated public, “impairing its right to hold agencies accountable for unlawful conduct in the jurisdictions where that conduct harms the public.” The FCC’s transfer motion is “especially inappropriate” because it would “undermine” the judicial lottery system, “reintroducing through the back door of transfer motions the forum shopping that Congress sought to eliminate when it established the current system of random selection in 1988,” it said. But the FCC stands firm in its support of the transfer, its reply said Friday. This latest round of “follow-on litigation” involves essentially the same parties, legal landscape, and issues that the D.C. Circuit “has been grappling with” through each successive net neutrality case and order, the FCC said. Should the litigation proceed in the 6th Circuit instead of the D.C. Circuit, the 6th Circuit and the parties “would need to expend considerable resources to walk the same ground already traveled during the previous years of litigation in the D.C. Circuit,” it said.