Politics
Federal court decision won't change California net neutrality law
Despite the dismantling of the Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to regulate broadband internet service, state laws in California, New York and elsewhere remain intact.
This week’s decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, striking down the FCC’s open internet rules, has little bearing on state laws enacted during the years-long tug-of-war over the government’s power to regulate internet service providers, telecommunications experts said.
In fact, some suggested that the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit’s decision — along with other rulings and the U.S. Supreme Court’s posture on a separate New York case — has effectively fortified state regulators’ efforts to fill the gap.
“Absent an act of Congress, the FCC has virtually no role in broadband any more,” Ernesto Falcon, a program manager for the California Public Utilities Commission, said in an interview. “The result of this decision is that states like California, New York and others will have to govern and regulate broadband carriers on our own.”
California has one of the nation’s strongest laws on net neutrality, the principle that internet traffic must be treated equally to ensure a free and open network. Former Gov. Jerry Brown signed the measure into law in 2018, months after federal regulators in President elect-Donald Trump’s first administration repealed the net neutrality rules put in place under President Obama.
Colorado, Oregon and other states also adopted their own standards.
The Golden State’s law has already survived legal challenges. It also prompted changes in the way internet service providers offered plans and services.
“California’s net neutrality law, which is seen as the gold standard by consumer advocates, carries national impact,” Falcon said.
Known as the California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act (formerly California Senate Bill 822), the law blocks what the state views as anti-competitive practices that harm consumers.
Such measures include slowing or throttling traffic speeds by internet providers. It also bans some forms of “zero rating,” an industry term for when a company exempts a select service from data caps.
After California’s law went into effect, telecommunications giant AT&T ended its practice of providing the Max streaming service to its phone customers without counting usage against a customer’s data cap. Streams of other services — those not owned by AT&T — were counted against the cap. The practice was seen as a way to keep consumers tethered to their AT&T phones.
The first Trump administration sued to block California’s law, delaying it for several years.
But after President Biden took office in 2021, his administration dropped efforts to defang California’s law.
An industry trade group, representing broadband providers, took up the cause. The group, ACA Connects, sued California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect.
But the courts turned back that legal effort, and the California-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the state law three years ago.
“The state laws have all been upheld,” said John Bergmayer, legal director of the pro-open internet consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge.
Last April, the FCC sought to reinstate the Obama-era rules to provide a national standard.
The FCC was seeking increased oversight so it could step in to force internet providers respond to service outages or security breaches. The FCC also cited national security interests, saying greater scrutiny was needed to enable the commission to effectively crack down on foreign-owned companies deemed security threats.
But three 6th Circuit judges ruled unanimously on Thursday that the FCC went beyond its authority when it tried to reclassify broadband service as a “telecommunications” service that was subjected to increased federal regulation under the 1934 Communications Act and the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
The ruling did not address state net neutrality laws.
Blair Levin, a former top FCC official and policy advisor to New Street Research, said the “the new decision keeps open the door to state action.”
In addition, Levin said the 9th Circuit determined that FCC measures did not preempt states from separately taking action.
He and other legal experts also pointed out the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a challenge to a New York law that requires internet service providers to offer low-income broadband service at a speed and price set by the state.
Because the high court skipped that case, the New York law stands. That could invite additional state actions, the analysts said.
“The state’s authority and role in broadband access has grown dramatically now,” Falcon said.
Politics
Video: Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name
new video loaded: Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name
transcript
transcript
Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name
President Trump’s handpicked board of trustees announced that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts would be renamed the Trump-Kennedy Center, a change that may need Congress’s approval.
-
Reporter: “She just posted on X, your press secretary, [Karoline Leavitt,] that the board members of the Kennedy Center voted unanimously to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center. What is your reaction to that?” “Well, I was honored by it. The board is a very distinguished board, most distinguished people in the country, and I was surprised by it. I was honored by it.” “Thank you very much, everybody. And I’ll tell you what: the Trump-Kennedy Center, I mean —” [laughs] “Kennedy Center — I’m sorry. I’m sorry.” [cheers] “Wow, this is terribly embarrassing.” “They don’t have the power to do it. Only Congress can rename the Kennedy Center. How does that actually help the American people, who’ve already been convinced that Donald Trump is not focused on making their life better? The whole thing is extraordinary.”
By Axel Boada
December 19, 2025
Politics
Judge tosses Trump-linked lawsuit targeting Chief Justice Roberts, dealing setback to Trump allies
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a pro-Trump legal group seeking access to a trove of federal judiciary documents, including from a body overseen by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts – putting an end to a protracted legal fight brought by Trump allies seeking to access key judicial documents.
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee assigned to the case earlier this year, dismissed the long-shot lawsuit brought by the America First Legal Foundation, the pro-Trump group founded by White House policy adviser Stephen Miller after Trump’s first term; Miller, now back in the White House, is no longer affiliated with AFL.
McFadden ultimately dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, saying Thursday that two groups responsible for certain regulatory and administrative functions for the federal judiciary are an extension of the judicial branch, and therefore protected by the same exemptions to federal laws granted to the judiciary.
“Nothing about either entity’s structure suggests the president must supervise their employees or otherwise keep them ‘accountable,’ as is the case for executive officers,” McFadden said.
TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON VOTING BLOCKED BY FEDERAL JUDGES AMID FLURRY OF LEGAL SETBACKS
Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor are seen at the 60th inaugural ceremony on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Ricky Carioti /The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Politics
Contributor: Who can afford Trump’s economy? Americans are feeling Grinchy
The holidays have arrived once again. You know, that annual festival of goodwill, compulsory spending and the dawning realization that Santa and Satan are anagrams.
Even in the best of years, Americans stagger through this season feeling financially woozy. This year, however, the picture is bleaker. And a growing number of Americans are feeling Grinchy.
Unemployment is at a four-year high, with Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, declaring, “The U.S. economy is in a hiring recession.” And a new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll finds that 70% of Americans say “the cost of living in the area where they live is not very affordable or not affordable at all.”
Is help on the way? Not likely. Affordable Care Act subsidies are expiring, and — despite efforts to force a vote in the House — it’s highly likely that nothing will be done about this before the end of the year. This translates to ballooning health insurance bills for millions of Americans. I will be among those hit with a higher monthly premium, which gives me standing to complain.
President Trump, meanwhile, remains firmly committed to policies that will exacerbate the rising cost of getting by. Trump’s tariffs — unless blocked by the Supreme Court — will continue to raise prices. And when it comes to his immigration crackdown, Trump is apparently unmoved by the tiresome fact that when you “disappear” workers, prices tend to go up.
Taken together, the Trump agenda amounts to an ambitious effort to raise the cost of living without the benefit of improved living standards. But if your money comes from crypto or Wall Street investments, you’re doing better than ever!
For the rest of us, the only good news is this: Unlike every other Trump scandal, most voters actually seem to care about what’s happening to their pocketbooks.
Politico recently found that erstwhile Trump voters backed Democrats in the 2025 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia for the simple reason that things cost too much.
And Axios reports on a North Carolina focus group in which “11 of the 14 participants, all of whom backed Trump last November, said they now disapprove of his job performance. And 12 of the 14 say they’re more worried about the economy now than they were in January.”
Apparently, inflation is the ultimate reality check — which is horrible news for Republicans.
Trump’s great talent has always been the audacity to employ a “fake it ‘till you make it” con act to project just enough certainty to persuade the rest of us.
His latest (attempted) Jedi mind trick involves claiming prices are “coming down tremendously,” which is not supported by data or the lived experience of anyone who shops.
He also says inflation is “essentially gone,” which is true only if you define “gone” as “slowed its increase.”
Trump may dismiss the affordability crisis as a “hoax” and a “con job,” but voters persist in believing the grocery scanner.
In response, Trump has taken to warning us that falling prices could cause “deflation,” which he now says is even worse than inflation. He’s not wrong about the economic theory, but it hardly seems worth worrying about given that prices are not falling.
Apparently, economic subtlety is something you acquire only after winning the White House.
Naturally, Trump wants to blame Joe Biden, the guy who staggered out of office 11 months ago. And yes, pandemic disruptions and massive stimulus spending helped fuel inflation. But voters elected Trump to fix the problem, which he promised to do “on Day One.”
Lacking tangible results, Trump is reverting to what has always worked for him: the assumption that — if he confidently repeats it enough times — his version of reality will triumph over math.
The difficulty now is that positive thinking doesn’t swipe at the register.
You can lie about the size of your inauguration crowd — no normal person can measure it and nobody cares. But you cannot tell people standing in line at the grocery store that prices are falling when they are actively handing over more money.
Pretending everything is fine goes over even worse when a billionaire president throws Gatsby-themed parties, renovates the Lincoln Bedroom and builds a huge new ballroom at the White House. The optics are horrible, and there’s no doubt they are helping fuel the political backlash.
But the main problem is the main problem.
At the end of the day, the one thing voters really care about is their pocketbooks. No amount of spin or “manifesting” an alternate reality will change that.
Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”
-
Iowa5 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Iowa6 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine3 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland5 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology1 week agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota5 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
Nebraska1 week agoNebraska lands commitment from DL Jayden Travers adding to early Top 5 recruiting class
-
Sports1 week agoPro Football Hall of Famer Troy Aikman critiques NIL landscape, transfer rules and Lane Kiffin’s LSU move