Will the Courts Allow the FCC to Execute One More Title II Flip Flop?
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo may have added a new wrinkle to the decades-long fight over whether broadband internet-access services should be classified as “telecommunications services” under Title II of the Communications Act. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has flip-flopped multiple times over the years on this hotly debated ... Will the Courts Allow the FCC to Execute One More Title II Flip Flop?
How This Supreme Court Term Might Affect the FCC’s Digital-Discrimination Rule
The recently completed U.S. Supreme Court session appears to have upended the administrative state in some pretty fundamental ways. While Loper Bright’s overruling of Chevron attracted the most headlines and hand-wringing, Jarkesy will have far-reaching effects across both the executive and judicial branches. Even seemingly “small” matters such as Ohio v. EPA and Corner Post ... How This Supreme Court Term Might Affect the FCC’s Digital-Discrimination Rule
What Do the NetChoice Cases Mean for Online Speech?
With the release of the U.S. Supreme Court’s NetChoice opinion (along with some other boring case people seem to want to talk about), opinions for the October 2023 term appear to be complete. After discussing what Murthy v. Missouri means for online speech, it only feels right to discuss the other big social-media case of ... What Do the NetChoice Cases Mean for Online Speech?
What Does Murthy v Missouri Mean for Online Speech?
After a lot of anticipation from Supreme Court watchers, the Murthy v. Missouri opinion has finally been released. As the oral argument suggested, standing was the issue for the Court, who in a 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett ruled that none of the plaintiffs had standing, due to a lack of traceability ... What Does Murthy v Missouri Mean for Online Speech?
Vullo and the Dangers of Government Coercion Over Speech
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major victory for free speech and struck a blow against government censorship-by-proxy yesterday in NRA v. Vullo: “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.” This is a major decision, and will have implications for free speech online, ... Vullo and the Dangers of Government Coercion Over Speech
ICLE/ITIF Amicus Brief Urges Court to Set Aside FCC’s Digital-Discrimination Rules
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently adopted sweeping new rules designed to prevent so-called “digital discrimination” in the deployment, access, and adoption of broadband internet services. But an amicus brief filed by the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) and the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of ... ICLE/ITIF Amicus Brief Urges Court to Set Aside FCC’s Digital-Discrimination Rules
Net Neutrality and the Paradox of Private Censorship
With yet another net-neutrality order set to take effect (the link is to the draft version circulated before today’s Federal Communications Commission vote; the final version is expected to be published in a few weeks) and to impose common-carriage requirements on broadband internet-access service (BIAS) providers, it is worth considering how the question of whether ... Net Neutrality and the Paradox of Private Censorship
Murthy Oral Arguments: Standing, Coercion, and the Difficulty of Stopping Backdoor Government Censorship
With Monday’s oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, we now have more of a feel for how the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be considering the issues of social-media censorship—in this case, done allegedly at the behest of federal officials. In the International Center for Law & Economics’ (ICLE) amicus brief in the case, we ... Murthy Oral Arguments: Standing, Coercion, and the Difficulty of Stopping Backdoor Government Censorship
NetChoice, the Supreme Court, and the State Action Doctrine
George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is frequently invoked when political actors use language to obfuscate what they are doing. Ambiguity in language can allow both sides to appeal to the same words, like “the First Amendment” or “freedom of speech.” In a sense, the arguments over online speech currently before the U.S. Supreme Court really amount ... NetChoice, the Supreme Court, and the State Action Doctrine
ICLE’s Amicus Briefs on the Future of Online Speech
Over the past few months, we at the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) have endeavored to bring the law & economics methodology to the forefront of several major public controversies surrounding online speech. To date, ICLE has engaged these issues by filing two amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, and another in ... ICLE’s Amicus Briefs on the Future of Online Speech
ICLE Files Amicus in NetChoice Social-Media Regulation Cases
Through our excellent counsel at Yetter Coleman LLP, the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE ) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton cases. In it, we argue that the First Amendment’s protection of the “marketplace of ideas” requires allowing private actors—like social-media ... ICLE Files Amicus in NetChoice Social-Media Regulation Cases
Health Care and Health Insurance Merger Retrospective: A Personal Law & Economics Experience
My colleagues at the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) often engage not only in excellent analysis of proposed mergers and acquisitions, but also have been known to offer retrospectives on past mergers. Today, I want to offer a very personal version of this. A little background: on June 3, 2022, I was diagnosed ... Health Care and Health Insurance Merger Retrospective: A Personal Law & Economics Experience
