WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, March 27

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:

• Supreme Court seems likely to OK $8 billion phone and internet subsidy for rural, low-income areas (Mark Sherman, The Associated Press)
• US Supreme Court leans toward preserving FCC fund for phone, broadband access (John Kruzel, Reuters)
• Supreme Court upholds Biden regulations on ‘ghost gun’ kits (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News)
• Trump administration asks Supreme Court to freeze dozens of teacher training grants (John Fritze, CNN)
• What Executive Orders Can (and Can’t) Do (Steve Vladeck, One First) 

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, March 26

Following opinion announcements, the Supreme Court will hear arguments this morning in FCC v. Consumers’ Research, a challenge to a FCC program that subsidizes telephone and internet services to schools, libraries, and underserved areas. The case has the potential to significantly curtail the power of federal agencies as challengers are also inviting the justices to revive the nondelegation doctrine, a legal theory conservative lawyers and business groups have been urging the court in recent years to bring back. The court last used the nondelegation doctrine in 1935. Listen to arguments live just after 10 a.m. EDT.

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• Supreme Court declines appeal from youths seeking to force action on climate crisis (John Fritze, CNN)
• A Landmark Lawsuit, Where Kids Sued America, Comes to an End (Karen Zraick, The New York Times)
• A new Supreme Court case could totally change which employers have to pay into unemployment benefits (Brit Morse, Fortune) 
• America’s Supreme Court tackles a thorny voting-rights case (The Economist) 
• The Judicial Impeachment Distraction (William McGurn, The Wall Street Journal)

CASE PREVIEW

Supreme Court to hear “nondelegation” challenge to telecom access program

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in a major challenge to the federal “E-rate program,” which subsidizes telephone and high-speed internet services in schools, libraries, rural areas, and low-income communities in urban areas. The stakes are high, not only because of the program’s size but also because the theory at the center of the challengers’ case, known as the nondelegation doctrine, is one that conservative lawyers and business groups have been urging the justices in recent years to revive. If the justices accept that invitation, it could be another step in the court’s recent efforts to curtail the power of federal agencies.

The subsidy program is the latest chapter in Congress’s efforts to provide access to the same kinds of telephone (and later internet) services at roughly the same rates to all U.S. residents and businesses. Until the late 20th century, this universal service was funded through implicit subsidies – for example, telephone companies would charge below-cost rates in rural areas, where it was more expensive to provide service, while at the same time charging above-cost rates in urban areas.

When the telephone industry was deregulated, however, Congress created a new system to fund universal service using more explicit subsidies. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress created the Universal Service Fund to facilitate universal service, which now also included telecommunications and information services like high-speed internet access for schools, libraries, rural health care providers.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, March 25

The justices this morning will hear two disputes on which federal courts should handle lawsuits over the Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC and Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency. Listen live at 10 a.m. EDT.

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• Supreme Court to mull jurisdiction for Clean Air Act disputes (Marc Heller, E&E News)
• Resurrected Consumer Group Leads Next Attack on Regulators (Lydia Wheeler, Bloomberg Law)
• Supreme Court confronts another challenge to the Voting Rights Act (Nina Totenberg, NPR)
• A new Supreme Court case seeks to revive one of the most dangerous ideas from the Great Depression (Ian Millhiser, Vox)
• Law in Mahmoud Khalil’s Case Was Once Struck Down — by Trump’s Sister (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)

Coming up: On Wednesday, March 26, the court expects to issue one or more opinions from the current term. We’ll be live at 9:45 a.m. EDT.

EMERGENCY DOCKET

Trump asks justices to block ruling on rehiring federal employees

This article was updated on March 27 at 11:16 a.m.

The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on Monday morning, asking the justices to pause an order by a federal judge in San Francisco that would require the federal government to immediately reinstate more than 16,000 probationary employees who were fired from six agencies in February. The ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the justices, lets “third parties hijack the employment relationship between the federal government and its workforce.”

Harris also asked the court to quickly impose an administrative stay, a temporary freeze of the district court’s order while the justices consider the government’s request.

The court called for a response by noon on Thursday, April 3.

The lawsuit was brought by nonprofit groups that contend that layoffs could lead to fewer government services, affecting their members. On March 14, Alsup issued a preliminary injunction that requires six departments in the federal government – Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and the Treasury – to immediately reinstate the probationary employees fired in February.