Politics

Federal court decision won't change California net neutrality law

Published

2 days ago

January 5, 2025

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the measure into law in 2018, months after federal regulators in President elect-Donald Trump’s first administration repealed the net neutrality rules put in place under President Obama.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

Four Years After Capitol Riot, Congress Certifies Trump’s Victory Peacefully

Published

4 hours ago

January 6, 2025

Press Room

Four Years After Capitol Riot, Congress Certifies Trump’s Victory Peacefully

A joint session of Congress on Monday certified President-elect Donald J. Trump’s victory in the 2024 election, peacefully performing a basic ritual of democracy that was brutally disrupted four years ago by a violent pro-Trump mob inflamed by his lie about a stolen election.

There was no hint of a similar scene this time, although security had been stepped up at the Capitol. Unlike Mr. Trump back then, Vice President Kamala Harris did not dispute her loss in November, and unlike Republicans in the aftermath of the 2020 balloting, Democrats made no objections during the counting of the Electoral College votes.

Instead, Ms. Harris stoically presided over the certification of her own loss without interruption. The presentation of the results unfolded quickly without drama, as House and Senate lawmakers who had been designated in advance read out the number of electoral votes from each state in alphabetical order, and who won them.

One by one, the lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats, rose to declare each state’s electoral votes “regular in form and authentic,” and nobody rose to challenge any. The only sign of partisanship in the House chamber was in the applause: Only Republicans applauded after the counting of each state that Mr. Trump won, and rose at the end for a standing ovation when it was announced that he had secured a majority, while only Democrats clapped for the states that Ms. Harris won and rose to applaud when her total electoral votes were announced.

Inside a Capitol blanketed in snow from a major winter storm overnight, the House chamber was fairly empty as Ms. Harris led members of the Senate across the Capitol on Monday afternoon to preside over the joint session. Earlier in the day, she had posted a video online in which she described her ceremonial role as “a sacred obligation — one I will uphold guided by love of country, loyalty to our Constitution and my unwavering faith in the American people.”

She told reporters as she made her way through the Rotunda that the important takeaway from the proceedings should be that “Democracy must be upheld by the people.” Her aides said presiding over a peaceful transition of power was one of her most important final acts in office.

On the dais in front of the House chamber, Ms. Harris made polite small talk with Speaker Mike Johnson, who four years ago played a leading role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

As lawmakers read their scripted presentation of electoral votes, they addressed Ms. Harris each time as “Madam President,” referring to her status as president of the Senate even as they were making it official that she would not hold that title for the next four years.

Amid the calm scene, however, there were reminders of the violence that had played out. The Capitol was on heavy lockdown, with tall black metal fencing around the building, and increased federal, state and local security resources on hand. For the first time, the day had been designated by the Homeland Security Department as a “national special security event.”

Lawmakers and law enforcement officials were determined to be prepared after the violence on Jan. 6, 2021, when protesters egged on by Mr. Trump’s false claim that he had won the election stormed the Capitol, wreaking havoc in a riot tied to the deaths of seven people, including three police officers.

President Biden has focused on ensuring a smooth and orderly transition of power, but Sunday night, he warned Americans not to forget the violent attack at the Capitol. Writing in The Washington Post, Mr. Biden accused Mr. Trump and his supporters of trying “to rewrite — even erase — the history of that day.”

Four years after Mr. Trump urged his supporters to “fight like hell” and march to the Capitol during a rally at the Ellipse, some Trump loyalists in Congress have worked to distance themselves from criticism of the rioters. Many Republicans have tried to whitewash the events of that day. And the president-elect has said he will pardon people convicted on charges stemming from their actions on Jan. 6, 2021.

Even as their party has for years called Mr. Trump a threat to the country’s foundational principles, Democrats refrained from challenging his victory.

“Our loyalties lie with the Constitution and the rule of law,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and minority leader, said Monday.

And he warned Mr. Trump against pardoning the criminals who assaulted police officers that day, which he said “would be a dangerous endorsement of political violence. It is wrong, it is reckless, and would be an insult to the memory of those who died in connection to that day.”

Maya C. Miller contributed reporting.

Politics

Judge Merchan denies Trump's request to delay sentencing

Published

4 hours ago

January 6, 2025

Press Room

Judge Merchan denies Trump's request to delay sentencing

New York Judge Juan Merchan denied President-elect Donald Trump’s request to delay sentencing in the New York v. Trump case.

“Defendant’s motion for a stay of these proceedings, including the sentencing hearing scheduled for January 10, 2025, is hereby DENIED,” Merchan wrote in his decision Monday.

Earlier Monday, Trump’s legal team filed a motion to delay sentencing in the case. Trump is set to be sentenced on Friday, Jan. 10, at 9:30 a.m., 10 days ahead of his inauguration as the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 20.

“Today, President Trump’s legal team moved to stop the unlawful sentencing in the Manhattan D.A.’s Witch Hunt. The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the state constitution of New York, and other established legal precedent mandate that this meritless hoax be immediately dismissed,” Trump spokesman and incoming White House communications director Steven Cheung told Fox Digital on Monday morning.

TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY ‘UNLAWFUL SENTENCING’ IN NEW YORK CASE

Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump sits in the courtroom as his criminal trial over charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 continues, at Manhattan state court in New York City, U.S., April 22, 2024. (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/Pool)

“The American People elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate that demands an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and all of the remaining Witch Hunts. We look forward to uniting our country in the new administration as President Trump makes America great again,” Cheung continued.

Merchan has already said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison, and instead issue a sentence of an “unconditional discharge,” which means there would be no punishment imposed.

Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the Manhattan case in May. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office worked to prove that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to quiet her claims of an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.

Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of lawfare promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November.

“Virtually ever legal scholar and pundit says THERE IS NO (ZERO!) CASE AGAINST ME. The Judge fabricated the facts, and the law, no different than the other New York Judicial and Prosecutorial Witch Hunts. That’s why businesses are fleeing New York, taking with them millions of jobs, and BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXES. The legal system is broken, and businesses can’t take a chance in getting caught up in this quicksand. IT’S ALL RIGGED, in this case against a political opponent, ME!!!” Trump posted to Truth Social on Sunday evening of the case.

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Politics

Opinion: The election shredded the rule of law

Published

5 hours ago

January 6, 2025

Press Room

Opinion: The election shredded the rule of law

Being elected president truly is a get-out-of-jail-free card for Donald Trump, but the greater concern should be for what this means for the rule of law in this country. On Friday, New York Judge Juan M. Merchan upheld Trump’s 34 felony convictions for falsifying business records. Merchan set sentencing for Friday, Jan. 10, and indicated that he would likely take the very unusual step of unconditionally discharging Trump’s sentence. In plain English, this means that Trump will face absolutely no legal consequences from his convictions — not prison, not probation, not a fine.

Trump’s lawyers are trying to halt even the signaled unconditional discharge while they appeal. But Merchan realistically has no alternative.

A prison sentence is incompatible with Trump serving as president of the United States. The appellate courts surely would overturn a prison sentence, holding that, under the Constitution, being elected president preempts the ability of a state to interfere with that by imprisonment. Trump could not perform his constitutional duties as president from a prison cell in New York. Nor would it make sense for a state judge to put the president on probation and supervise his actions with the threat of revocation and imprisonment.

Trump faced up to four years in prison for the crimes for which he was convicted in New York. A study by the New York Times found that of 30 convictions for falsifying business records in Manhattan in the last decade, no other defendant received an unconditional discharge. All but five received sentences such as jail and prison time, probation and fines; some who entered into plea deals received sentences involving specific conditions, such as paying restitution or completing community service.

Indeed, Michael Cohen, the person who arranged the payment of the hush money that led to Trump’s conviction, was sentenced to three years in prison and served 13 months in custody. Trump, who the jury found orchestrated and was responsible for authorizing the payments, will never serve a day in jail.

But this is only a part of Trump’s get-out-of-jail-free benefit. He was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for his acts in attempting to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election. Had Trump lost in November, he would have been tried and faced a prison sentence if convicted. But the charges were dismissed after Trump was elected because of a Justice Department rule that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted.

This also was the basis for dismissing the indictment against Trump in federal court in Florida for improper handling of classified documents. The charges against him were serious: evidence tampering, willfully retaining national defense information and lying to investigators. If convicted, these charges also would likely have led to a significant prison sentence.

And it must be remembered that last summer the Supreme Court, in Trump vs. United States, ruled that Trump could not be prosecuted for anything he did using official powers granted to the president by the Constitution or a statute. This led to the dropping of some charges against him. The court’s decision provides protection for any official acts taken during his first term, and he assumes office knowing he faces little possibility of prosecution for any illegal acts in the next four years.

It is impossible to reconcile all of this with the most basic notion of the rule of law, the core of which is that no one, not even a president or former president, is above the law. It is captured in the idea, uttered from the beginning of American history, that we are “a country of laws, not people.” The last thing that the framers of the Constitution wanted was to create a president who could not be held accountable for breaking the law.

Trump still faces civil liability for some of his past conduct. Last week, a federal court of appeals upheld a $5-million verdict against Trump for his sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll. Another jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million against Trump for defamation. That verdict is now on appeal. Also, Trump is appealing a $355-million verdict for business fraud against him and his company.

But none of these civil suits involve the crimes he committed or was charged with. Nor does there seem any way to ever punish him for those felonies.

The assault on the rule of law is also reflected in Trump’s promise to pardon those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the Capitol. So far, more than 1,500 individuals have been charged with federal crimes in connection to Jan. 6. Most of those were misdemeanors, such as trespassing, but hundreds have pleaded guilty to or were convicted of assault or other felonies. The conduct of all was illegal and unconscionable in a democracy, yet they could be absolved of criminal liability.

It is perhaps too easy to ignore that this situation is unique in our republic’s history. Never before has a convicted felon become president. Never before has election as president meant the dismissal of criminal charges. It flouts the very essence of the rule of law that election as president could be a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a contributing writer to Opinion, is dean of the UC Berkeley Law School.