These 3 judges hold the fate of the Internet net neutrality rules in their hands
These 3 judges hold the fate of the Internet in their
hands
By Brian Fung November 24 at 6:15 AM
Next week, a federal appeals court in Washington will
hear one of its biggest cases of the year, one whose outcome will directly
affect how Internet providers can alter your experience online.
At stake are the government's net neutrality rules
banning telecom and cable companies from unfairly discriminating against new or
potential rivals. Using their power in the marketplace to control what services
consumers can access from their smartphones, tablets and PCs, Internet
providers could be granted more latitude to favor preferred Web sites — if the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit says so.
Three judges from the D.C. Circuit have been named to
hear the oral argument on Dec. 4. Much like the Supreme Court, the very makeup
of this panel could subtly shape the course of events. What do we know about the
judges? Are they familiar with the issues? How might they vote? Below, get
briefly acquainted with each one ahead of the big day.
Judge Sri Srinivasan is a relative newcomer to the court,
having been appointed by President Obama in 2013. His views on net neutrality
and technology aren't clear, making him a bit of an enigma. But we do know this
much: He's said to be a rising star. Srinivasan is reportedly on the Democratic
Party's shortlist for Supreme Court nominees.
Getting there certainly wasn't easy. While under
consideration for the D.C. Circuit post, some liberals attempted to torpedo
Srinivasan's nomination because of his past jobs. He'd previously been a legal
assistant to the Bush administration and has represented clients such as Exxon
on human-rights issues. Here's how Mother Jones described him in 2013:
At a time when Republican obstruction has ground the
confirmation process to a halt, and the outspoken progressivism — or even mild
progressivism — of prior Obama nominees has run into GOP filibusters,
Srinivasan's unclear record offers Republicans few legitimate reasons to block
him. It also means that liberals can't be sure that Srinivasan actually shares
their views.
When it comes to net neutrality, that last point is just
as true today as it was two years ago.
Judge Stephen F. Williams is a senior judge on the D.C.
Circuit. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Williams is described by
some court-watchers as skeptical of preemptive regulation when after-the-fact
antitrust enforcement may suffice. He's written prolifically about regulation,
particularly on environmental issues.
That makes Williams an incredibly interesting character.
Looking back at some of his articles, it's clear Williams has a nuanced and
complex relationship with his job. In "The Roots of Deference," a
1991 book review for the Yale Law Journal, Williams lays out a theory for how
judges should interpret federal agency decisions that come before the courts.
This is significant because it's exactly the situation
we're in now, with industry groups challenging the FCC's net neutrality rules
as unlawful. It's the job of the D.C. Circuit to decide whether the FCC did, in
fact, go too far. Though Williams might view regulation more skeptically in
general, in 1991 he made a conservative argument for judicial restraint when
federal agencies test out certain, possibly controversial, legal theories.
"An agency's caution in one domain may require it to
extend itself in another, just as a stretch — going to the edge — in one may
enable it to occupy safe territory in another," Williams wrote. He went
on:
Courts have a duty in appropriate cases to curb agency
lawlessness, and carrying out that duty contributes to sound governance. But
just as masons building a cathedral should not supplant the architect, even
though both are creating a work of art, a judge should not supplant the
politician or administrator though all are seeking sound governance.
In short, it's unwise to make any hard-and-fast
assumptions about how Williams is likely to rule in the net neutrality case.
Judge David S. Tatel's key credential here is that he
authored the legal opinion that led to this current case. Appointed by
President Bill Clinton, Tatel has the unusual distinction of enjoying skiing,
marathoning and climbing mountains — while blind. Tatel has a background in
civil rights and education law, and once served in the administration of
President Jimmy Carter.
Tatel along with two other judges held in 2014 that the
FCC misused its powers to impose net neutrality on Internet providers. But they
never explicitly said what the FCC should do to get on the right side of the
law. That has led to a furious debate over the court's ruling. Partisans on
both sides say the court laid out a very clear road map for the FCC; it's just
that each side disagrees on what that road map actually said.
That 2014 net neutrality case is known as Verizon v. FCC,
and Tatel is the sole returning judge this time, drawing that much more
attention to his role in the last round.
Because both sides are claiming to have properly
interpreted Tatel's 2014 ruling, everyone's watching to see how Tatel himself
will now view this case.
Much as we shouldn't read too much into Williams's
conservative leanings, however, we shouldn't conclude that Tatel necessarily
has any greater insight to offer on the case than either of his colleagues. Nor
should we assume that Srinivasan will side with the FCC just because he's a
Democratic appointee who stands to defend his position on the Supreme Court
shortlist if he sides with the Obama administration.
That said, knowing the judges' backgrounds ahead of time
helps put their questioning — and their decisions — into greater context,
making it easier to understand it all later.
Comments
Post a Comment