February 10, 2025 – The U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will hold oral arguments in FCC et al. v. Consumers’ Research and Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition et al. v. Consumers’ Research on Wednesday March 26, 2025 at 10:00 am. Under the Supreme Court’s oral argument rules, both the petitioners and respondents are given 30 minutes, for a total of one hour. However, the Court has divided the 30 minute oral argument time for the petitioners as follows:

• 20 minutes for the federal petitioners in No. 24-354  (Federal Communications Commission and the United States of America )

• 10 minutes for private petitioners in No. 24-422  (Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, Competitive Carriers Association (CCA), National Telecommunications Cooperative Association dba NTCA (NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association), USTelecom-The Broadband Association, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, National Digital Inclusion Alliance, and Center for Media Justice dba MediaJustice)

• The federal petitioners will open the argument and present rebuttal

An audio feed of the argument is live-streamed on the Court's website, and the Court posts the audio later in the day. On the afternoon of each argument, the Court posts transcripts of that day’s arguments.

In July 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an en banc decision, declared that Congress’ conferral of authority to the FCC to implement the universal service contribution system violates the non-delegation doctrine. The Fifth Circuit also held that the FCC’s utilization of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to help perform related tasks violates the non-delegation doctrine. Thereafter, the FCC (24-354) and a group of public interest and trade associations (24-422) sought separate Writs Of Certiorari requesting Supreme Court review. Both petitions were granted and consolidated under Docket 24-354 for the Court’s 2024 October Term. Because there are separate petitioners who have raised different interests, the Supreme Court has divided their oral argument time. The Court provided the following explanation in its announcement:

Dividing the argument time for petitioners would be of material assistance to this Court because the petitioners represent distinct interests. The federal petitioners have a significant interest in defending the constitutionality of the applicable statute and FCC rules, as well as in the scope of the nondelegation doctrine more generally. The private petitioners have a significant interest in the continued operation of the Universal Service Fund in particular and are well positioned to explain the effects of the court of appeals’ judgment on the Fund’s beneficiaries.

The Supreme Court’s review is to consist of the following four questions presented, the fourth of which was added by the Court:

1. Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in Section 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Fund.

2. Whether the Commission violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the Administrator’s financial projections in computing universal service contribution rates.

3. Whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the Commission and the Commission’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the Administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine.

4. Whether this case is moot in light of the challengers’ failure to seek preliminary relief before the Fifth Circuit.

**********