OPINION:
As the Supreme Court recently closed out its term, most attention went to the high-drama cases around cultural flashpoints — from youth transition procedures to nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration. But buried beneath the noise was Federal Communications Commission (FCC) v. Consumers’ Research, a quieter decision with long-term consequences for millions of Americans’ economic future and daily lives.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld the FCC’s ability to collect fees for the Universal Service Fund (USF), a program that preserves internet access for rural communities’ schools, hospitals and libraries otherwise unserved by the free market. The three liberal justices joined Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett in affirming that the FCC’s authority to collect fees from telecommunications companies is constitutionally sound and was properly ascribed to the commission in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Conservatives and libertarians had hoped the case would revive the nondelegation doctrine and end the administrative state’s perpetual expansion. It did not. Yet, the ruling preserves something rare: a federal program that actually works. And in doing so, it opens the door to a renewed push for a modernized, efficient approach to rural broadband access.
The USF spends about $8 billion annually to ensure underserved populations – especially the poor and those in remote areas – can access essential communications services. Created in the early days of the internet, the program originally focused on universal phone service funded by requiring all interstate telecommunications services to contribute to the fund via usage-based fees. Throughout the years, the program broadened its scope to funding broadband for low income and rural areas.
Today, communities across America depend on the affordable, reliable access to modern wireless cellular connection and Wi-Fi provided by the program. Proponents of USF argue this model should be expanded to guarantee broadband for all Americans. But such an expansion would cost substantially more than the existing program and jeopardize the innovative, dynamic telecommunications sector by creating a regulatory barrier that permits the state to monopolize the sector.
Even those who disagree with the Court’s ruling on the legal merits recognize the critical services offered by USF. Maintaining a baseline for the truly vulnerable and needy, determined by economic metrics and geographic connectivity, is essential to digital communications in this country. That shouldn’t open the can of worms of a social justice-driven free-for-all.
With USF’s funding structure now legally sound, legislators and FCC commissioners alike can move ahead with meaningful improvements on the program to ensure its long-term fiscal health. Reforms should first and foremost target the contribution structure. Currently, landline phone customers – just one-in-four Americans – heavily foot the bill for USF funding despite its broader reach into the cellular and internet space. Widening the contributor base to include wireless customers would dramatically reduce the overall fees for all contributors.
Next, serious considerations of current telecommunications are needed. The government cannot subsidize valueless activities like gaming or foot the bill for well-off households perfectly capable of paying their own way. The FCC should scrutinize what services are essential, both in terms of use-case and platforms. Americans want to support young students and doctors, not terrorist-sympathizing Twitch streamers. Eliminating outdated spending and enhancing fund vetting will help keep the broader program fiscally solvent and better aligned with today’s connectivity priorities.
The Court’s ruling in FCC v. Consumers’ Research is not a sweeping win for the administrative state, nor is it a death knell for conservative legal reform. It’s something rarer in our modern politics: a reaffirmation of limited governance in service of people and places that often get left behind. The idea of a government that works has already been picking up steam and the FCC should hop on the train.
What comes next for USF matters more than the decision itself. With the legal scaffolding settled, policymakers have a narrow – but real – window to modernize the Universal Service Fund without turning it into a blank check or ideological pet project. Rural broadband doesn’t need a revolution. It needs clarity, accountability and a funding model that reflects the way Americans actually communicate in 2025.
That’s not an act of big government. It’s an act of basic competence. And the country could use more of it.
• Sam Raus is the David Boaz Resident Writing Fellow at Young Voices, a political analyst and public relations professional. Follow him on X: @SamRaus1.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.