DC Circuit Won't Delay Net Neutrality Arguments During Trump's Shutdown
Federal trial and appellate judges are dividing over which cases to pause amid the shutdown, now the longest in the nation's history.
January 17, 2019 at 05:00 PM
4 minute read
A federal appeals court in Washington, ruling Thursday against the Federal Communications Commission, refused to delay arguments in a challenge to the agency's decision to repeal so-called net neutrality rules requiring internet service providers to give equal access to all web content.
The decision marked the latest instance of a court pushing back against an agency's bid to pause ongoing litigation amid the Trump administration's shutdown. Lawyers for the FCC had cited the agency's lapse in appropriations in seeking to postpone the arguments scheduled for Feb. 1.
In court papers Wednesday, lawyers for one group challenging the FCC's revocation of so-called net neutrality rules noted that the court declined to postpone cases during the last major government shutdown in 2013.
“Moreover, there is a need for a timely decision in this important matter. Due to the FCC's misguided and unlawful repeal of the network neutrality rules, consumers are at risk of substantial harm from internet service providers, which may now interfere with access to lawful Internet content without the restraint of the net neutrality rules,” Steptoe & Johnson LLP partner Markham Erickson wrote in the filing. He said the petitioners “have invested substantial resources and time in preparing for oral argument.”
Federal trial and appellate judges are dividing over which cases to pause amid the shutdown, now the longest in the nation's history. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees are either forced to work without pay or are required to stay home.
In the D.C. Circuit, a feud broke out among judges after the court refused to push back a hearing in a Federal Aviation Administration case. Senior Judge A. Raymond Randolph criticized two of his colleagues for allowing the case to proceed.
This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined a request from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to delay argument in a case contesting the agency's decision to deny whistleblower awards to a pair of Canadians. The appeals court said the SEC lawyer assigned to the case would argue from a “remote” location, if necessary.
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the Justice Department's request to pause a closely watched challenge to the Affordable Care Act. In that case, a Texas judge declared the signature Obama-era health care law unconstitutional.
In the days after the shutdown began last month, the Justice Department went to court seeking to postpone arguments and deadlines in thousands of cases. Government attorneys said they are not allowed to work, even voluntarily, save for in limited circumstances that involve the safety of human life and protection of property.
Some judges agreed to pause cases until funding is restored to government agencies, but many others spurned the requests.
Last week, Senior Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Justice Department to continue responding to comments on its settlement allowing CVS to complete its planned $69 billion acquisition of Aetna.
Leon bristled at the Justice Department's argument that it could not work on responding to comments until funding is restored, ruling that the “government's internal, political squabble over funding is NO reason to postpone the congressionally mandated evaluation of the government's proposal to remedy the antitrust concerns allegedly raised by the merger's consummation!”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllManufacturing Group Urges Sweeping Environmental Deregulation in Letter to Trump
'Close Our Borders?' Senate Judiciary Committee Examines Economics, Legal Predicate for Mass Deportation Proposal
3 minute readFederal Judge Grants FTC Motion Blocking Proposed Kroger-Albertsons Merger
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250