The Supreme Court seems to be hesitant to cancel the monthly phone fees

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday challenging the legitimacy of the World Service Fund, a program that spends more than $ 8 billion annually to help Americans with low and rural income to reach the phone and the Internet, in addition to schools, libraries and hospitals.

Consumer and consumer researchers first submitted its case against the Federal Communications Committee in 2022, but it feels particularly at the present time. At the same time with the Trump administration Click for sharp changes To an investment of $ 42 billion in the rural broader infrastructure, the USF decision in the USF case has the ability to increase the broader subsidies that have been present 30 years ago.

Three liberal Supreme Court judges, in addition to Amy Kony Barrett and Brett Cavano, It did not seem to be affected Through the argument that the program is illegal or not completely achieved by Congress.

“I thought this was much better for the government than I expected at the beginning of this morning,” Adam Cruz, a law professor at Rutgers who represented the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) during the previous procedures.

USF was at the intersection of conservatives for some time. In the 2025 project, the conservative plan that the Trump administration has Follow -upBrendan Car, Commissioner of the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) called for a new financing mechanism that would contribute to the field of large technology instead of phone companies.

“The current approach to FCC is the regulatory equivalent to impose taxes on horses to pay the price of highways,” Car wrote In 2023.

However, the Trump administration attorneys have defended the Federal Communications Committee in the case, on the pretext that the summary of consumer research “attacks a straw.

The court appears to be hesitant to download the program

The legal summary presented by consumer research draws a picture of the rampant bureaucracy – a group of non -elected officials who impose a tax on any size they see appropriate.

“Congress handed its tax authority to the Federal Communications Committee without objective or meaningful limits to the size of the tax,” Her lawyers wrote. “The Federal Communications Committee (FCC) is guided by its own aspirations, and for good management, the agency allowed the agency to expand its own power of the will.”

But the judges seemed largely not affected by this argument, and they pushed the idea that there were no combined restrictions.

Judge Elena Kagan said: “The Federal Communications Committee (FCC) cannot do anything through this program that is not mainly directed to obtaining those who live in very rural areas or very low incomes, who get the services that all of us possess.”

Near the end of the arguments, conservative justice, Samuel Alto, expressed concern about the influence on the ground to rule against USF.

“What will be the influence of people in rural areas if this is unconstitutional and not behavior?” He asked Alto.

Alito was seen as one of the judges who were likely to judge against the Federal Communications Committee, but his questions raised doubt.

“I thought this was very amazing, because it indicates that even if he was sympathetic to this situation, he may not be ready to pull the trigger on him,” Cruz said.

Perhaps more important than the questions that were that were not.

“The president of the judges was very calm,” said Cors. “His silence, I read, may commit to the current situation.”

What is the Global Service Fund?

Pull your phone bill and do a search for “global service”. You will likely see a pair of dollars in the program. The Federal Communications Committee collects funds from telecommunications companies – not individuals – but one of the usual practices is to transfer them to its customers.

This is a point of disagreement for consumers: USF fee is a tax actually and this is something that has a Congress only the ability to do it.

“The owners of the two affiliates are wrong in the size of the social welfare program with billions of dollars are trivial details that can be left to the agency’s Beruvancrators to fill”, consumer research. ” In the summary.

At the heart of the USF case is an idea called “comprehensive service”. Communications Law of 1934 This is mentioned “All people in the United States can access the rapid and effective communication service in the country with adequate facilities on reasonable charges.”

A modernization update was established in 1996, the USF program, an independent program within the framework of the jurisdiction of the Federal Judicial Communications Committee that expanded the comprehensive service to include a wide range of internet in addition to phones.

USF funds four programs targeting different aspects of the digital gap: Connect America Fund (Rural areas), Lifeline (Low income users), E. average (Schools and Libraries) and Rural health care program. Managed by Universal Service, a private non -profit company.

“Do you really want to cancel a 30 -year program for some theoretical things?” Blair Levin, the former chief of staff of the Federal Communications Committee and New Street, said research. “This is a very common program, especially because it serves many Republicans.”

What next?

Perhaps we will not hear anything new about the USF case until the Supreme Court issues their decision, most likely at the end of June. If the court goes in the direction that appears to be heading, the program will continue to be funded by the phone bill fees in the near future. However, the financing of Internet benefits through the phone bill fees may not be defended in the long run.

“The economic challenge – the growing financing that was funded at the revenue base – was understood – at least at least from the last two administrations, but nothing has been conducted, along with discussions in Congress, to address them,” Levin wrote in an investor note.

On the opportunity to be the court that you find that the USF financing mechanism is illegal, any number of possible tracks will be opened. Do they give Congress and FCC time to fix the program or find alternative financing?

“I think they will do,” Levin said. “If you are going to cut the financing at the present time, I think there are a number of rural phone companies that will go bankrupt.”