National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services
2005 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on how to regulate Internet service providers are eligible for Chevron deference, in which the judiciary defers to an administrative agency's expertise under its governing statutes.[1] While the case concerned routine regulatory processes at the FCC and applied to interpretations of the Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996, the ruling has become an important precedent on the matter of regulating network neutrality in the United States.[2][3]
National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services | |
---|---|
Argued March 29, 2005 Decided June 27, 2005 | |
Full case name | National Cable & Telecommunications Association, et al. v. Brand X Internet Services, et al. |
Docket no. | 04-277 |
Citations | 545 U.S. 967 (more) 125 S. Ct. 2688; 162 L. Ed. 2d 820; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5018; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 482 |
Case history | |
Prior | FCC order affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded, Brand X Internet Servs. v. FCC, 345 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2003); rehearing, rehearing en banc denied, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 8023 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2004); cert. granted, sub nom. Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 543 U.S. 1018 (2004). |
Subsequent | On remand, sub nom. Brand X Internet Servs. v. FCC, 435 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2006). |
Holding | |
Per the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission is eligible for Chevron deference by the courts when routine regulatory decisions are challenged. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Breyer |
Concurrence | Stevens |
Concurrence | Breyer |
Dissent | Scalia, joined by Souter, Ginsburg (part I) |
Laws applied | |
Telecommunications Act of 1996 |