Speaker 1: Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Lawn Brief,
Speaker 1: exploring legal issues in the news, and this updates brought
Speaker 1: to you by American Arbitration Association, International Trade or Business
Speaker 1: Dispute Resolve Faster with the International Center for a Dispute Resolution,
Speaker 1: the leader in alternative dispute resolution around the world i
Speaker 1: c d R dot org. Today Bloomberg, Lahst dun Grasso,
Speaker 1: and Michael Best discussed why A, T and T and
Speaker 1: other broadband providers are asking the Supreme Court to overturn
Speaker 1: the Obama Error net Neutrality rule, which bars Internet service
Speaker 1: providers from slowing or blocking rivals content. They speak with
Speaker 1: Enrico r a professor at Elon University School of Law,
Speaker 1: and Daniel Lyons, a professor at Boston College Law School. Oh, Daniel,
Speaker 1: what is their argument that the FCC made a mistake here?
Speaker 1: So the there's a handful of arguments that are coming
Speaker 1: up to the Supreme Court. The primary one is the
Speaker 1: assertion that the agency simply had no authority to classify
Speaker 1: I s p s as common carriers. The idea is
Speaker 1: essentially that these are rules that were written originally to
Speaker 1: govern the telephone network, and that although Congress was not
Speaker 1: completely clear in the Telecom Act, which is the last
Speaker 1: time it revisited these issues. Um that it's like the
Speaker 1: likely sense of Congress was that these rules were not
Speaker 1: rules that were intended to govern the Internet. That and
Speaker 1: said the Internet was to be left with a light touch. Enrique,
Speaker 1: the Internet and Television Association said this. I'd just like
Speaker 1: you to react to it. The divided panel decision in
Speaker 1: this case upheld a commission or that claims unprecedented authority
Speaker 1: to regulate the Internet. That order was not the culmination
Speaker 1: of deliberate process and reason decision making. What's your reaction
Speaker 1: to that? You know, my reaction is that there there
Speaker 1: is kind of something lurking underneath here. Uh, it's someone
Speaker 1: that wasn't around before, and that's just to score such
Speaker 1: I mean, I think a T and T is um
Speaker 1: and then the other industry folks are are are latching
Speaker 1: on to some statements that Justice courseus has made but
Speaker 1: before before his confirmation, mostly concerning the level of deference
Speaker 1: that courts should apply to agency interpretations of federal law.
Speaker 1: Justice course, it's back when he was a judge and
Speaker 1: a commentator was very skeptical of this idea. That courts
Speaker 1: should defer to agencies. So the language that you just
Speaker 1: read from the n C T A Brief, some other
Speaker 1: arguments that Jennie referred to in the A T and
Speaker 1: T brief, I believe are very much crafted with the
Speaker 1: idea that Justice COURSEUS could take this net neutrality issue
Speaker 1: and the and the decision of the d C Circuit
Speaker 1: as an opportunity to say, uh, courts need to be
Speaker 1: much more rigorous when courts, when lower courts come to
Speaker 1: um split decisions on very contested issues. Uh, it's a
Speaker 1: court job to step in and say affirmative and affirmatively
Speaker 1: and declaratively exactly what the law should be and how
Speaker 1: it should be in open died. That's Enrique Army, a
Speaker 1: professor at Elon University School of Law, and Daniel Lyons,
Speaker 1: a professor at Boston College Law School, speaking with the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Lah host doom Grasso and Michael Best. You can
Speaker 1: listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall Street
Speaker 1: Time here on Bloomberg Radio