The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:

The number of states with privacy laws reached 18 after Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) signed SB-541/HB-567 on Thursday. Vermont and Minnesota could soon join the ranks. While not first, Maryland “sets the new standard” for state privacy laws and “raises the bar” for Congress, said Caitriona Fitzgerald, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) deputy director, in an interview. Meanwhile, in California, the first state with a privacy law, board members of the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) slammed the preemptive current draft of a privacy bill from Congress.

U.S. District Judge Michael Watson for Southern Ohio in Columbus reserved ruling in part and denied in part Vivek Ramaswamy’s March 21 and April 1 motions to dismiss Thomas Grant’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint, said the judge’s signed opinion and order Friday (docket 2:24-cv-00281).

The FCC’s digital discrimination broadband order “is illegal on at least three grounds,” the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Washington Legal Foundation said in an 8th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court amicus brief Tuesday (docket 24-1179). The brief supports the 20 industry petitioners that seek to vacate the order as unlawful (see 2404230032). When Congress grants lawmaking authority to a federal agency, it must lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the agency can conform, according to the brief. Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directs the FCC to adopt rules that facilitate equal access to broadband, including by preventing digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion or national origin, it said. The industry petitioners “persuasively explain” that Section 60506's language doesn’t permit the FCC to implement disparate impact liability, it said. But if it did, then that language violates the nondelegation doctrine by failing to provide an intelligible principle governing such liability, it said. “Virtually any action that a regulated entity can take will have a disparate impact along one or more dimensions of income level, race, ethnicity, color, or religion,” said the brief. That’s especially true because of the inclusion of income level, “which means that any decision by a covered entity lowering or raising prices will have a disparate impact based on income and thus come within the FCC’s enforcement authority,” it said. The authority to promulgate disparate impact rules “is a major question to which Congress is required to speak clearly,” it said. Because Congress didn’t speak “clearly to this particular question” in the statute, the FCC’s order is “invalid,” it said. The order also requires covered entities to “treat people differently based on race, in violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection,” it said.

The FCC’s digital discrimination broadband order “is illegal on at least three grounds,” the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Washington Legal Foundation said in an 8th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court amicus brief Tuesday (docket 24-1179). The brief supports the 20 industry petitioners that seek to vacate the order as unlawful (see 2404230032). When Congress grants lawmaking authority to a federal agency, it must lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the agency can conform, according to the brief. Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directs the FCC to adopt rules that facilitate equal access to broadband, including by preventing digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion or national origin, it said. The industry petitioners “persuasively explain” that Section 60506's language doesn’t permit the FCC to implement disparate impact liability, it said. But if it did, then that language violates the nondelegation doctrine by failing to provide an intelligible principle governing such liability, it said. “Virtually any action that a regulated entity can take will have a disparate impact along one or more dimensions of income level, race, ethnicity, color, or religion,” said the brief. That’s especially true because of the inclusion of income level, “which means that any decision by a covered entity lowering or raising prices will have a disparate impact based on income and thus come within the FCC’s enforcement authority,” it said. The authority to promulgate disparate impact rules “is a major question to which Congress is required to speak clearly,” it said. Because Congress didn’t speak “clearly to this particular question” in the statute, the FCC’s order is “invalid,” it said. The order also requires covered entities to “treat people differently based on race, in violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection,” it said.

Apple’s “gatekeeping” of its App Store and “arbitrary decisions” hurt “honest developers,” alleged a Monday antitrust complaint (docket 5:24-cv-02698) against the iPhone maker in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose.

The federal government is progressing in its understanding of the extent of threats to federal technology systems, Eric Goldstein, executive assistant director-cybersecurity at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event late Wednesday. Other speakers noted private companies have slowly become more willing to share information when they experience a cyberattack.

Top Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act (HR-6929/S-3565) backers Sens. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, and Peter Welch, D-Vt., said Thursday they plan to press forward with an amendment to the bipartisan 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act that would appropriate $7 billion in stopgap funding for the ailing FCC broadband program (see 2405010055) despite opposition from Senate leaders. ACP stopgap funding advocates used a Senate Communications Subcommittee hearing that day to implore that Congress act while critics raised objections about what they said was a lack of clear information about the program's efficacy.

In the first third of its first public hearing on promoting supply chain resilience, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and interagency officials heard from groups disputing the premise of the project -- that liberalizing trade was harmful to U.S. workers and manufacturing -- and from those who say the worker-centered trade approach of the Biden administration is not going far enough to restore American manufacturing.

The term smart city can be useful for policymakers as they discuss using advanced communications and other tools to move cities forward, Bill Maguire, founder of Connected Communities, said during a Broadband Breakfast webinar Wednesday. Smart cities aren’t a destination, but a process, he said. Maguire believes individual cities must define smart city for themselves and act accordingly.