A Senate Republican appropriator questioned how the FCC handled its recent rate of return USF overhaul and is pressing for inquiries, he told NTCA members Tuesday. Scores of NTCA members flew to Washington this week for a meeting and to lobby congressional offices Tuesday.

PHILADELPHIA -- The FCC faced skepticism from all three judges considering for a third time public interest group and broadcaster challenges to media ownership rules, as expected (see 1604150059). The FCC lawyer told the jurists that Chairman Tom Wheeler remains committed to his plan to circulate by June 30 an ownership item. Courtroom observers siding with FCC challengers said in follow-up interviews that rather than accepting the commission at its word, the 3rd Circuit may mandate the FCC take action.

Microsoft's lawsuit challenging federal government orders that prevent the company from telling customers that their data is being searched or taken "brings attention to the issue" (see 1604140041), but several interviewed said they were unsure whether the company would prevail. American University assistant law professor Jennifer Daskal told us Friday that even though the company's argument that the combination of no-notice warrants and indefinite gag orders raises issues of the First and Fourth amendments, it's a "facial challenge, meaning that a piece of the statute (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act or ECPA) itself should be struck down and I think that part of the claim is going to be hard to establish."

Microsoft's lawsuit challenging federal government orders that prevent the company from telling customers that their data is being searched or taken "brings attention to the issue" (see 1604140041), but several interviewed said they were unsure whether the company would prevail. American University assistant law professor Jennifer Daskal told us Friday that even though the company's argument that the combination of no-notice warrants and indefinite gag orders raises issues of the First and Fourth amendments, it's a "facial challenge, meaning that a piece of the statute (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act or ECPA) itself should be struck down and I think that part of the claim is going to be hard to establish."

House Communications Subcommittee Democrats will seek to change two bills set for a Tuesday markup: the Kelsey Smith Act (HR-4889) and Kari’s Law Act (HR-4167). Democrats support both bills in concept but would require tweaks before approving them, said Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., in his opening statement Monday. The subcommittee will vote 2 p.m. Tuesday on the seven measures considered at a hearing last week (see 1604130059).

House Communications Subcommittee Democrats will seek to change two bills set for a Tuesday markup: the Kelsey Smith Act (HR-4889) and Kari’s Law Act (HR-4167). Democrats support both bills in concept but would require tweaks before approving them, said Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., in his opening statement Monday. The subcommittee will vote 2 p.m. Tuesday on the seven measures considered at a hearing last week (see 1604130059).

Microsoft's lawsuit challenging federal government orders that prevent the company from telling customers that their data is being searched or taken "brings attention to the issue" (see 1604140041), but several interviewed said they were unsure whether the company would prevail. American University assistant law professor Jennifer Daskal told us Friday that even though the company's argument that the combination of no-notice warrants and indefinite gag orders raises issues of the First and Fourth amendments, it's a "facial challenge, meaning that a piece of the statute (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act or ECPA) itself should be struck down and I think that part of the claim is going to be hard to establish."

The federal government's renewed application to force Apple to open a locked iPhone seized in a New York drug investigation is trying to "obscure" an "inconvenient fact" that Magistrate Judge James Orenstein in New York's Eastern District has already "soundly rejected" DOJ's previous legal argument in the case, the company said in a filing (in Pacer) Friday. In February, Orenstein denied the government's motion to get Apple's help with the device, saying the "government's interpretation of the breadth of authority the [All Writs Act] confers on courts of limited jurisdiction thus raises serious doubts about how such a statute could withstand constitutional scrutiny under the separation-of-powers doctrine" (see 1603010013). The government appealed and resubmitted its application (see 1604080064). Apple said it's unclear whether the evidence in the iPhone has any value and the defendant in the case already pleaded guilty. Apple also questioned whether its assistance is necessary since the DOJ withdrew a similar motion in a case involving an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino, California, mass shooters. "As a preliminary matter, the government has utterly failed to satisfy its burden to demonstrate that Apple's assistance in this case is necessary -- a prerequisite to compelling third party assistance under the All Writs Act," Apple said in the motion. The company asked the court to reject DOJ's "overarching and unsupported" interpretation of the act and deny the application.

The federal government's renewed application to force Apple to open a locked iPhone seized in a New York drug investigation is trying to "obscure" an "inconvenient fact" that Magistrate Judge James Orenstein in New York's Eastern District has already "soundly rejected" DOJ's previous legal argument in the case, the company said in a filing (in Pacer) Friday. In February, Orenstein denied the government's motion to get Apple's help with the device, saying the "government's interpretation of the breadth of authority the [All Writs Act] confers on courts of limited jurisdiction thus raises serious doubts about how such a statute could withstand constitutional scrutiny under the separation-of-powers doctrine" (see 1603010013). The government appealed and resubmitted its application (see 1604080064). Apple said it's unclear whether the evidence in the iPhone has any value and the defendant in the case already pleaded guilty. Apple also questioned whether its assistance is necessary since the DOJ withdrew a similar motion in a case involving an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino, California, mass shooters. "As a preliminary matter, the government has utterly failed to satisfy its burden to demonstrate that Apple's assistance in this case is necessary -- a prerequisite to compelling third party assistance under the All Writs Act," Apple said in the motion. The company asked the court to reject DOJ's "overarching and unsupported" interpretation of the act and deny the application.

The federal government's renewed application to force Apple to open a locked iPhone seized in a New York drug investigation is trying to "obscure" an "inconvenient fact" that Magistrate Judge James Orenstein in New York's Eastern District has already "soundly rejected" DOJ's previous legal argument in the case, the company said in a filing (in Pacer) Friday. In February, Orenstein denied the government's motion to get Apple's help with the device, saying the "government's interpretation of the breadth of authority the [All Writs Act] confers on courts of limited jurisdiction thus raises serious doubts about how such a statute could withstand constitutional scrutiny under the separation-of-powers doctrine" (see 1603010013). The government appealed and resubmitted its application (see 1604080064). Apple said it's unclear whether the evidence in the iPhone has any value and the defendant in the case already pleaded guilty. Apple also questioned whether its assistance is necessary since the DOJ withdrew a similar motion in a case involving an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino, California, mass shooters. "As a preliminary matter, the government has utterly failed to satisfy its burden to demonstrate that Apple's assistance in this case is necessary -- a prerequisite to compelling third party assistance under the All Writs Act," Apple said in the motion. The company asked the court to reject DOJ's "overarching and unsupported" interpretation of the act and deny the application.