The Supreme Court of the United States is currently evaluating a pivotal case that may influence the availability of internet and phone services for millions in rural regions across Maryland and the nation. Maryland Attorney General Brown has supported a bipartisan effort advocating for the retention of a crucial fund designed to sustain these services.
The case, Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, alongside a consolidated case involving the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, focuses on the future of the Universal Service Fund (USF). Created under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the USF aims to enhance nationwide communication infrastructure, catering especially to rural communities, educational institutions, and economically disadvantaged users.
Attorney General Brown emphasized the importance of connectivity, stating, “Marylanders in rural communities should not be denied the ability to connect with their family and friends, or perform basic tasks.” He highlighted the essential role of modern communication tools in daily responsibilities such as bill payments, work, and education.
The contention surrounds a 2021 legal challenge against the USF by Consumers’ Research, which argues that the fund’s administration involves excessive delegation of Congressional power to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and by extension, to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC)—a nonprofit managing the USF.
Despite rejections from the Sixth, Eleventh, and a Fifth Circuit panel, the full Fifth Circuit deemed the USF unconstitutional, sparking this Supreme Court review. Attorney General Brown, along with 23 other state officials, defends the FCC’s administration of the USF, asserting it fulfills Congressional objectives effectively and constitutionally.
These officials represent a wide array of states, including Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. They collectively argue that the USF is vital for providing subsidized telecommunication services to underprivileged and rural populations in their states.
