A former Senate Finance Committee chairman when Republicans were in the majority, a pro-trade Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, and that committee's trade subcommittee leaders all agree -- if a returned President Donald Trump imposed a global 10% tariff by executive order, Congress likely would step in to undo it.

The U.S. filed a motion to remand an Enforce and Protect Act case in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, in which the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA party's due process rights by not granting them access to business confidential information. Filing the Sept. 14 motion in a Court of International Trade case filed by importer Newtrend USA Co., the government claimed that a limited remand is needed because the opinion concerns "the treatment of confidential information" (Newtrend USA Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00347).

California legislators voted to require wireless eligibility for state broadband funds on the last day of their session Thursday. Wireless is a “reliable substitute … when it’s impossible to use fiber,” said Assembly Communications Committee Vice Chair Jim Patterson (R) in an interview Friday. The Utility Reform Network (TURN) prefers fiber and remains opposed.

Eight former FTC and DOJ antitrust enforcers from Democratic and Republican administrations asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the district court's denial of the FTC's motion for a preliminary injunction on Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard buy (see 2307110031). Their brief was one of seven amici briefs filed Wednesday (docket 23-15992), all in opposition to the FTC's merger challenge on appeal.

The International Trade Commission's decision to find that freight rail couplers from China and Mexico injured the domestic industry was not backed by substantial evidence, given its finding in a separate, previously conducted investigation that the couplers just from China did not injure the U.S. industry, importer Wabtec Corp. argued in a Sept. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157).

The FCC’s Public Safety Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology are forwarding concerns House China Committee leaders raised about the extent to which Chinese equipment manufacturers like Fibocom and Quectel are spying via U.S. IoT-connected devices via connectivity modules “to each of the authorities enumerated in” the 2019 Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act to probe the status of those companies, commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in letters to panel leaders released Tuesday. House China Chairman Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., and ranking member Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Calif., asked Rosenworcel in August about Fibocom and Quectel, citing concerns about the threat to U.S. IoT devices (see 2308080059). “The issues you raise with respect to connectivity modules merit continued attention,” she wrote the House China leaders. The commission “is examining additional steps it should take to protect U.S. networks. In addition to our efforts to prevent equipment on the Covered List from being approved through our equipment authorization process, the agency sought comment on the extent to which certain ‘component parts’ associated with equipment authorized by the agency, if produced by entities identified on the Covered List, should be precluded from authorization because they might also pose an unacceptable risk to national security.” The FCC “also sought comment on whether the Commission should revoke authorizations of specific Covered List equipment that was issued prior to the date any prohibition on authorization went into effect, what the process would be for doing so, and how this would work in the marketplace,” she said: “At present, the agency is examining the record in this proceeding and considering what steps will further protect communications networks and equipment supply chains.” Fibocom and Quectel “are among those that have obtained authorizations of modules,” Rosenworcel said. “The agency does not have information about whether authorized equipment may have been or is currently used in U.S. networks, and, if so, where precisely it is deployed,” but “we coordinate closely and regularly with our federal partners and executive branch bodies that have the responsibility for making determinations regarding equipment and services that pose an unacceptable risk and have written to them to ensure that this matter receives appropriate review.”

A big question about subject-matter jurisdiction will require more briefs in a case on whether cities are entitled to franchise fees from streaming TV providers, said 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Frank Easterbrook. At oral argument Tuesday in City of East St. Louis v. Netflix (case 22-2905), judges also voiced skepticism about the merits of the Illinois city’s arguments.

DOJ attorneys convinced a three-judge 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court panel, all Republicans, that U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 injunction was overbroad and vague when it barred dozens of Biden administration officials from pressuring social media platforms to moderate unfavorable content. But the panel’s opinion late Friday (docket 23-30445), paring down the injunction and vacating it outright against officials from three federal agencies, left intact the restrictions on the White House, the Office of the Surgeon General, the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Plaintiff Judy Mulvihill and her putative class members are barred from asserting their Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against Spectrum in U.S. District Court for South Carolina in Greenville “to the extent their claims are subject to a binding arbitration agreement” and an agreement to arbitrate their disputes on an individual, non-class basis, said Spectrum’s answer Thursday (docket 6:23-cv-03542) to Mulvihill’s July 21 complaint. Mulvihill alleges Spectrum called her cellphone repeatedly and left prerecorded voice mails, seeking to reach Zachary Kelly, a person unknown to her, about a pending service interruption. Mulvihill’s claims also are barred because Spectrum “possessed a good faith belief that it had consent to call the numbers at issue,” said its answer. Spectrum also contends Mulvihill didn’t suffer “actual constitutional injury” due to its alleged TCPA misconduct and therefore doesn’t have standing, it said. Any damages, injury, violation or wrongdoing alleged in the complaint was caused by third parties, for which Spectrum can’t be held vicariously liable, said its answer. To the extent “contractors” engaged in the conduct alleged in the complaint, those vendors “acted outside the scope or in violation of the parties’ agreements,” and Spectrum didn’t “approve of that conduct,” it said. The application of the TCPA on which the complaint is based, including imposition of statutory damages on Spectrum, would violate the due process provisions of the Constitution, it said. Certain definitions contained in the TCPA also render the statute “unconstitutionally vague,” and the statutory penalties Mulvihill seeks are unconstitutionally “excessive,” it said. Mulvihill’s TCPA claims also are barred “to the extent they are based on regulations or rulings that exceed the FCC’s delegated authority,” said Spectrum. “Nor can the Hobbs Act be validly or constitutionally applied” to preclude Spectrum from raising defenses to an action “arising under the TCPA or rules or regulations promulgated thereunder,” it said.

California’s inadequate enforcement of telecom service quality perpetuates inequity, said Small Business Utility Advocates regulatory attorney Itzel Hayward at a California Public Utilities Commission workshop Thursday. A public advocates panel asked the CPUC for stronger penalties against carriers and to apply plain old telephone service (POTS) quality rules to VoIP, broadband and wireless services. Commissioner Darcie Houck urged parties in docket R.22-03-016 to “think outside the box.”