U.S. Supreme Court ends fight over Obama-era net neutrality rules

[SaysWho?]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-netneutrality/u-s-supreme-court-ends-fight-over-obama-era-net-neutrality-rules-idUSKCN1NA1UW?il=0

 

Quote

The legal fight over a 2016 lower court ruling upholding Obama-era net neutrality regulations aimed at ensuring a free and open internet - rules that have since been repealed by President Donald Trump’s administration - came to a formal end on Monday, with the U.S. Supreme Court declining to take up the matter.

The Trump administration and internet service providers had asked to justices to wipe away the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that had temporarily preserved the net neutrality regulations championed by Democratic former President Barack Obama. But the justices refused to hear the appeals, leaving the lower court ruling in place.

 

Quote

The brief court order noted that three of the court’s conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, would have thrown out the appeals court decision. Chief Justice John Roberts and new Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh were both recused from the case.

 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

What's this mean

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

What's this mean

It means the new Net Neutrality rules are in effect until they are overturned in court.

[Nokra]

So it's a temporary victory for net neutrality.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

7 minutes ago, Nokra said:

So it's a temporary victory for net neutrality.

There's no victory, temporary or otherwise.

 

The new rules are in effect so Net Neutrality is dead.

[Jason]

This doesn't end the fight though, since if more cases about this bubble up to Courts of Appeals--especially if one of those courts issues a contradictory opinion--then the likelihood of SCOTUS taking up the matter increases.

[Jason]

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

There's no victory, temporary or otherwise.

 

The new rules are in effect so Net Neutrality is dead.

 

The "victory" is that if SCOTUS had taken up the matter and ruled opposite to how the Court of Appeals did, then a future administration would have been unable to re-implement the rules.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

This doesn't end the fight though, since if more cases about this bubble up to Courts of Appeals--especially if one of those courts issues a contradictory opinion--then the likelihood of SCOTUS taking up the matter increases.

It ends the fight over the Obama/Wheller rules, but has no impact on any current/future fights over the Trump/Pai rules.

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

It ends the fight over the Obama/Wheller rules, but has no impact on any current/future fights over the Trump/Pai rules.

 

I'm repeating what I saw on the Ars Technica article about this:

 

Quote

 

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the broadband industry's challenge of Obama-era net neutrality rules.

 

The Federal Communications Commission's 2015 order to impose net neutrality rules and strictly regulate broadband was already reversed by Trump's pick for FCC chairman, Ajit Pai. But AT&T and broadband industry lobby groups were still trying to overturn court decisions that upheld the FCC order.

 

A win for the broadband industry could have prevented future administrations from imposing a similarly strict set of rules. The Trump administration supported the industry's case, asking the US Supreme Court to vacate the Obama-era ruling.

 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/supreme-court-wont-rule-on-legality-of-obama-era-net-neutrality-rules/

[sblfilms]

What it means is that as of today, the rules put in place during the Obama admin are lawful under the federal circuit court’s ruling.

 

But they also no longer exist because the Trump admin removed them anyway. Theoretically a new administration could reinstitute them, but then you would not necessarily have the Roberts/Kavanaugh recusal issue.

 

Sooooo, it means nothing really.