The net-neutrality rules, issued by the Federal Communications Commission in 2015, required internet service providers to treat all traffic on their networks equally, without blocking or slowing competitors, or speeding the content of those willing to pay for it.
The rules were hotly contested because, among other things, the FCC had reclassified broadband providers to make them like traditional phone systems that are subject to more sweeping regulatory obligations.
A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the FCC’s rules in 2016, prompting an array of appeals to the Supreme Court. In the interim, however, the FCC under the leadership of Ajit Pai, whom President Trump appointed as chairman, rolled back the regulations, effectively mooting out the legal battle.
But AT&T Inc., industry trade groups and others argued the D.C. Circuit decision should still be vacated as binding precedent because they weren’t able to finish their challenge to the net-neutrality rules before the FCC changed them.
They want the prior ruling wiped off the books because they believe it sets an adverse legal precedent, even if the rules are no longer operative.
The Supreme Court denied that request in a brief written order that suggested the court was ideologically divided on the proper course of action. Three conservative justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch—said they would have tossed out the D.C. Circuit ruling.
Two other conservatives were recused. Justice Brett Kavanaugh didn’t take part because he had participated in the case while serving on the D.C. Circuit, where he dissented last year when the appeals court declined to reconsider the case.
Chief Justice John Roberts was recused apparently because of stockholdings. According to the chief justice’s 2017 financial disclosure report, he held shares in Time Warner, which has since been acquired by AT&T, a party to the case.
The new Trump rollback rules are facing their own legal challenges, this time from Democratic state attorneys general and consumer advocates. If those regulations are struck down in court, it’s possible the previous net-neutrality rules would again take effect, at least temporarily.