Supreme Court Rejects Nondelegation Challenge To The FCC’s Universal Service Fund
Client Alert | June 27, 2025
FCC v. Consumers’ Research, Nos. 24-354 and 24-422 – Decided June 27, 2025
Today, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the statute authorizing the FCC to collect universal service contributions from telecommunications companies does not violate the nondelegation doctrine.
“The question in this case is whether the universal-service scheme . . . violates the Constitution’s nondelegation doctrine, either because Congress has given away its power to the FCC or because the FCC has given away its power to a private company. We hold that no impermissible transfer of authority has occurred.”
Justice Kagan, writing for the Court
Background:
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directed the FCC to establish a Universal Service Fund to subsidize telecommunications services in rural and low-income areas, schools, and libraries. See 47 U.S.C. § 254. The Act instructs that “universal service” should be available at “just, reasonable, and affordable” rates. Id. § 254(i). Telecommunications carriers must make contributions to the fund that are “sufficient” to “advance universal service.” See id § 254(d)–(e). In defining universal service, the Commission must consider “the extent to which” telecommunications services “are essential to education, public health, or public safety”; are “subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers”; and “are consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Id. § 254(c)(1). The FCC’s policies to “preserv[e] and advance[]” universal service must be based on six specific principles and any additional principles the FCC determines are “necessary and appropriate for the protection of the public interest, convenience, and necessity and are consistent with this chapter.” Id. § 254(b).
In 1997, the FCC directed a private not-for-profit corporation, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), to help the FCC administer the fund. Among other things, USAC helps the FCC determine the size of carriers’ contributions by providing financial projections to the Commission.
A carrier and others challenged the FCC’s 2022 contribution rate in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. They argued that the Universal Service Fund is unconstitutional because Congress delegated legislative power to the FCC and the Commission then redelegated power to USAC. A Fifth Circuit panel rejected the challenge. Sitting en banc, the full Fifth Circuit held 9-7 that the combination of Congress’s delegation to the FCC and the FCC’s delegation to USAC violates the Constitution’s vesting of legislative power in Congress.
Issues:
Did Congress violate the nondelegation doctrine when it authorized the FCC to determine the amounts that telecommunications carriers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; did the FCC violate the nondelegation doctrine by using USAC projections to determine contribution rates; or did the combination of these delegations violate the nondelegation doctrine?
Court’s Holding:
Neither Congress nor the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine. Section 254 provides an intelligible principle to constrain the FCC’s discretion in determining the amount of money to collect to support universal service and in defining universal service. The FCC did not improperly delegate to USAC because the FCC maintained the final say as to contribution rates. Those two lawful delegations do not become unconstitutional when combined.
What It Means:
- The Court’s decision upholds the Universal Service Fund’s contribution mechanism, applying the traditional intelligible-principle test. The Court reiterated that exercises of Congress’s tax power are evaluated under “the usual nondelegation standard.” It also refused to draw a distinction for nondelegation purposes between statutes authorizing fees and statutes authorizing taxes.
- The Court nonetheless emphasized that the intelligible-principle test is not toothless: Congress must make “clear both the general policy that the agency must pursue and the boundaries of its delegated authority”; those standards must “enable both the courts and the public to ascertain whether the agency has followed the law”; and the acceptable degree of discretion “varies according to the scope of the power congressionally conferred.” That leaves open the possibility that some statutes might still be successfully challenged on nondelegation grounds.
- On the private nondelegation question, the Court held that the FCC did not unconstitutionally delegate authority to USAC because the FCC retained ultimate “decision-making power,” even if USAC gave “recommendations.” The Court was not willing to scrutinize whether the FCC was practically functioning merely as a rubber stamp.
- The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s “combination theory” of unconstitutionality as novel and unsound. Because the public and private nondelegation doctrines “do not operate on the same axis,” measures implicating one do not “compound” measures implicating the other. The Court distinguished Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010), where both measures at issue “limited the same thing—the President’s power to remove executive officers.”
- Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, dissented. He would have held that the funding mechanism is novel and violates the intelligible-principle test. In the end, however, he expressed “some optimism” because the Court did not address two provisions that allow the FCC to provide more “advanced” and “additional” services for schools, libraries, and healthcare providers—§ 254(c)(3) and (h)(2). Those provisions remain open to challenge.
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the U.S. Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice group leaders:
Appellate and Constitutional Law
| Thomas H. Dupree Jr. +1 202.955.8547 tdupree@gibsondunn.com |
Allyson N. Ho +1 214.698.3233 aho@gibsondunn.com |
Julian W. Poon +1 213.229.7758 jpoon@gibsondunn.com |
|
Lucas C. Townsend +1 202.887.3731 ltownsend@gibsondunn.com |
Bradley J. Hamburger +1 213.229.7658 bhamburger@gibsondunn.com |
Brad G. Hubbard +1 214.698.3326 bhubbard@gibsondunn.com |
Related Practice: Administrative Law and Regulatory
|
Stuart F. Delery |
Eugene Scalia |
Helgi C. Walker |
This alert was prepared by associates Zachary Tyree and Connor P. Mui.
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.