Schmitt Grills Rosenworcel on Legal Justification for FCC Net Neutrality Reboot
Senate Commerce Committee member Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., is pressing FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel to explain by Nov. 16 the legal justification for pursuing her proposal to largely reinstate the commission’s rescinded 2015 net neutrality rules and reclassification of broadband as…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
a Communications Act Title II service (see 2310190020). Senate Commerce ranking member Ted Cruz of Texas and other congressional Republicans vigorously criticized Rosenworcel for considering the reboot but are holding back from pursuing legislation to stop her, for now (see 2310170071). “I will not stand idly by as the FCC under your leadership attempts to usurp Congress and claim Article I Branch legislative authority for yourself,” Schmitt said in a Thursday letter to Rosenworcel. “If you decide to move forward with this reckless action, expect my colleagues and I” on Senate Commerce “to call for your appearance before the committee to be held accountable. Though your recent decisions demonstrate that you clearly believe that Congress is a mere speedbump, I will defend the will of Missourians who elected me to the Senate to stand up against economy killing regulations such as the one you are proposing.” Schmitt is asking Rosenworcel to detail “the specific authority granted by Congress to support” the new net neutrality NPRM. He also wants her to “confirm that you believe” Title II reclassification “would be a regulation of ‘vast economic and political significance'” and “explain how the Commission is preparing for an almost certain legal challenge under the major questions doctrine” that the U.S. Supreme Court invoked in its 2022 West Virginia v. EPA ruling (see 2206300066).