The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a program providing subsidized internet and phone service to underserved communities across the United States. The vote was 6-3.

Conservative groups challenged the program, contending that Congress exceeded its powers in enacting legislation that delegated to the Federal Communications Commission the task of operating the Universal Service Fund, a program that provides subsidized telephone and internet services to rural healthcare providers, schools and libraries, and low income Americans.

But the Supreme Court rejected that argument. Writing for the six-member court majority, Justice Elena Kagan said Congress’s delegation to the FCC didn’t violate the Constitution.

The decision ensures access to internet and telecommunications service for rural and underserved people throughout the country, and puts a damper on efforts to chip away at congressional power in new ways.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the ruling.

At the center of the case is Article I, Section I of the Constitution which reads “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…”

The clause, however, does not say if or when Congress can delegate power, and some conservatives have long argued that Congress cannot delegate its power at all.

Congress created the Federal Communications Commission 90 years ago—to regulate and ensure reliable and affordable telecommunications services throughout the country.

As telecommunications changed dramatically, Congress passed the Communications Act of 1996, which included a subsidy program, known as the Universal Service Fund, to ensure that rural areas received high quality telephone access. Since then, telecommunications companies have paid into the fund to subsidize service for underserved groups.

When passing the 1996 law, congress tasked the FCC with administering the Universal Service Fund, guiding the agency to make service available at “just, reasonable, and affordable rates” and to ensure that all Americans have access “to services that are reasonably comparable.” The FCC manages the now-$8 billion fund, determining quarterly how much each telecommunications company must pay.

Consumers’ Research, a conservative nonprofit, challenged the law, arguing that the Universal Service Fund operated as a tax and that only Congress can levy taxes. Therefore, the organization argued, the FCC was violating the constitution by usurping congress’s power to tax. Worse yet, argued the organization, the FCC had created a separate nonprofit to determine the amount each telecommunications company should pay into the fund.

Gorsuch, writing the Supreme Court’s dissent, agreed with the challengers, saying that the “Constitution affords only our elected representatives the power to decide which taxes the government can collect and at what rates.”

The FCC countered that the Universal Service Fund was, in fact, not a tax, and that Congress had provided sufficient guidance to the FCC to administer the program and so was not unconstitutionally delegating away legislative power.

“Somebody’s got to run the program,” said former Republican chairman of the FCC Richard Wiley. “Congress can’t, you know, run the program after they set it up.”

The conservative Fifth Circuit sided with Consumers’ Research arguing that congress unlawfully delegated its power to the agency and invalidated the Universal Service Fund.

But on Friday, the Supreme Court disagreed, ensuring access to internet and telecommunications service for rural and underserved people throughout the country, and putting a damper on efforts to chip away at congressional power in new ways.

News Source : https://www.opb.org/article/2025/06/27/supreme-court-upholds-program-providing-internet-access-to-rural-americans/