Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Lawn Brief, exploring legal issues in the news, and this updates brought to you by American Arbitration Association, International Trade or Business Dispute Resolve Faster with the International Center for a Dispute Resolution, the leader in alternative dispute resolution around the world i
c d R dot org. Today Bloomberg, Lahst dun Grasso, and Michael Best discussed why A, T and T and other broadband providers are asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Obama Error net Neutrality rule, which bars Internet service providers from slowing or blocking rivals content. They speak with Enrico r a professor at Elon University School of Law, and Daniel Lyons, a professor at Boston College Law School. Oh, Daniel, what is their argument that the FCC made a mistake here?
So the there's a handful of arguments that are coming up to the Supreme Court. The primary one is the assertion that the agency simply had no authority to classify I s p s as common carriers. The idea is essentially that these are rules that were written originally to govern the telephone network, and that although Congress was not completely clear in the Telecom Act, which is the last time it revisited these issues. Um that it's like the likely sense of Congress was that these rules were not
rules that were intended to govern the Internet. That and said the Internet was to be left with a light touch. Enrique, the Internet and Television Association said this. I'd just like you to react to it. The divided panel decision in this case upheld a commission or that claims unprecedented authority to regulate the Internet. That order was not the culmination of deliberate process and reason decision making. What's your reaction to that? You know, my reaction is that there there
is kind of something lurking underneath here. Uh, it's someone that wasn't around before, and that's just to score such I mean, I think a T and T is um and then the other industry folks are are are latching on to some statements that Justice courseus has made but before before his confirmation, mostly concerning the level of deference that courts should apply to agency interpretations of federal law. Justice course, it's back when he was a judge and
a commentator was very skeptical of this idea. That courts should defer to agencies. So the language that you just read from the n C T A Brief, some other arguments that Jennie referred to in the A T and T brief, I believe are very much crafted with the idea that Justice COURSEUS could take this net neutrality issue and the and the decision of the d C Circuit as an opportunity to say, uh, courts need to be much more rigorous when courts, when lower courts come to
um split decisions on very contested issues. Uh, it's a court job to step in and say affirmative and affirmatively and declaratively exactly what the law should be and how it should be in open died. That's Enrique Army, a professor at Elon University School of Law, and Daniel Lyons, a professor at Boston College Law School, speaking with the Bloomberg Lah host doom Grasso and Michael Best. You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio