Perspectives from FSF Scholars April 12, 2024 Vol. 19, No. 12

Brand X Services (2005), the Supreme Court upheld the first of a series of FCC orders that classified broadband Internet access services as “information services.”2 Applying the Chevron doctrine, the Court in Brand X concluded that the Communication Act’s use of the terms “offering” and “telecommunications service” was ambiguous.3 Based upon those findings of statutory ambiguity, the court deferre. [...] Such factors include “the amount of money involved for regulated and affected parties, the overall impact on the economy, the number of people affected, and the degree of congressional and public attention to the issue.”16 10 See The Free State Foundation, “Hot Topics in Law and Policy – FSF’s Sixteenth Annual Policy Conference (March 12, 2024), at: ; “TM. [...] The Proposed Title II Reclassification Involves Matters of Economic and Political Significance The Draft Order’s denial that the Major Questions Doctrine applies at all is mistaken.17 The facts weigh decisively in favor of the conclusion that the Biden FCC’s Internet regulation plan raises issues of vast economic and political significance. [...] The FCC’s Novel National Security, Public Safety, and Cybersecurity Rationales Reinforce the Proposed Regulation’s Economic and Political Significance The vast economic and political significance of the proposed Title II reclassification is reinforced by claims – made by the Commission for the first time – that Internet access service is an “essential service.”29 According to the Draft Order, broa. [...] FCC as deciding that Brand X conclusively establishes the Commission’s authority to make that classification decision and that the Major Questions Doctrine does not apply.41 And the Draft Order cites the 2017 opinion of Judges Srinivasan and Tatel stating that the Commission had clear authorization from Congress to issue its 2015 Title II classification decision.42 However, the D.