National Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs

Supreme Court of United States
545 U.S. 967 (2005)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A court's prior interpretation of an ambiguous statute does not foreclose a contrary, but reasonable, interpretation by an administrative agency. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) classification of cable modem service as solely an "information service" exempt from mandatory common-carrier regulation is a lawful and permissible construction of the Communications Act.

Facts:

Cable companies began providing consumers with high-speed broadband Internet access over their existing cable television lines.
This service combines the high-speed data transmission component with information-processing capabilities, such as the Domain Name System (DNS), email, and the ability to access the World Wide Web.
From a consumer's perspective, the data transmission and the information-processing functions are provided as a single, integrated service.
This cable modem service competes in the marketplace with other forms of internet access, primarily Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service, which is provided over traditional telephone company wires.
The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, subjects providers of "telecommunications services" to mandatory common-carrier regulations under Title II, but does not impose these same regulations on providers of "information services."

Procedural Posture:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Declaratory Ruling classifying cable modem broadband service as exclusively an 'information service' under the Communications Act.
Various parties, including Brand X Internet Services, petitioned for judicial review of the FCC's ruling in federal court.
The petitions were consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding it was bound by its circuit precedent in AT&T Corp. v. Portland, vacated the FCC's ruling to the extent it found cable modem service was not also a 'telecommunications service'.
The National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the FCC (petitioners) were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Federal Communications Commission's conclusion that cable companies providing broadband Internet service offer only an 'information service' and not a 'telecommunications service' represent a lawful construction of the Communications Act?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Thomas

Yes, the Federal Communications Commission's conclusion is a lawful construction of the Act. A prior judicial interpretation of a statute trumps a subsequent agency interpretation only if the court held the statute's text to be unambiguous. Here, the Ninth Circuit's precedent in Portland did not find the statute unambiguous, so the FCC was free to offer its own interpretation. Applying the Chevron framework, the statutory term 'offering' is ambiguous as it can reasonably refer to the consumer's perception of the single, integrated final product rather than its discrete components. The FCC's conclusion that cable modem service is a functionally integrated 'information service' and not a stand-alone 'telecommunications service' offering is a reasonable policy choice for the agency to make, and thus is entitled to deference.

Dissenting - Justice Scalia

No, the Federal Communications Commission's conclusion is not a lawful construction of the Act. The FCC's interpretation that cable companies do not 'offer' telecommunications is an implausible reading of the statute that defies common sense. A company that provides a transmission pathway to the internet is clearly offering telecommunications, just as a pizzeria that brings a pizza to a customer's house is offering delivery. The majority’s new rule allowing an agency to disregard a prior judicial construction unless the court declared the statute 'unambiguous' is a dangerous novelty that makes judicial decisions subject to reversal by executive officers and undermines the rule of law.

Concurring - Justice Stevens

Yes. While joining the majority opinion in full, its explanation that a court of appeals' interpretation of an ambiguous statute does not foreclose a contrary agency reading would not necessarily apply to a decision by the Supreme Court, which would presumably remove any pre-existing ambiguity.

Concurring - Justice Breyer

Yes. I join the Court's opinion but write to dispute the dissent's characterization of United States v. Mead Corp. Chevron deference is not solely dependent on the formality of an agency's process, but on a variety of indicators showing that Congress intended to delegate interpretive authority to the agency for a given statutory provision.

Analysis:

This decision significantly strengthens the doctrine of agency deference under Chevron. It establishes the principle, often called 'Brand X deference,' that an agency can advance a new, reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute even after a federal court has offered a conflicting interpretation, so long as the court did not declare the statute's meaning to be unambiguous. This enhances agency flexibility to adapt regulations to changing circumstances, such as new technology, and has had a profound impact on telecommunications law, forming the legal basis for subsequent FCC actions regarding net neutrality and the classification of internet services.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: National Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"