SCOTUS Saves E-Rate Program, Preserving Tech Funding for Schools Across the Country

In a major victory for public institutions and the tech companies that support them, the U.S. Supreme Court just preserved the federal funding lifeline that underpins internet access and telecommunications connectivity in low-income and rural schools, libraries, and healthcare facilities. On June 27, SCOTUS issued its greatly anticipated decision in FCC v. Consumers’ Research, overturning a lower court ruling that had put the future of the E-rate program – and billions in annual subsidies – on shaky ground. What do you need to know about this crucial decision and what it might mean for your school?

The E-Rate Program, in a Nutshell

The E-rate program provides discounts to help schools and libraries afford telecommunications and internet services like broadband access, internal connections, and network maintenance. It ensures affordable access to modern communications networks by offering discounts of up to 90%, depending on factors like poverty levels and urban/rural status. It not only enables schools to maintain the kinds of tech needed to provide digital learning, but it helps economically disadvantaged areas where internet services might otherwise be unavailable.

Quick Legal Backdrop

• Congress established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to ensure access to communications services across the country at reasonable rates – a goal known as “universal service.”
• In 1996, Congress sought to enhance universal service through the Telecommunications Act, which authorized the FCC to collect contributions from telecom companies for a Universal Service Fund (USF).
• The fund supports the E-rate program to subsidize telecom and internet services for low-income consumers and for schools, libraries, and hospitals in rural areas and other underserved communities.
• The FCC delegated administration of the USF to a private nonprofit entity: the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). A 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision found this structure unconstitutional, ruling that Congress had improperly delegated taxing authority to the FCC, and the FCC had then impermissibly passed administrative control to a private party.

At issue before the Supreme Court was the ‘non-delegation doctrine,’ which requires that Congress provide a clear and guiding standard – an “intelligible principle” – when delegating authority to federal agencies. 

The Decision

In a 6-3 ruling, SCOTUS reversed the 5th Circuit and saved the E-rate program. The majority held that Congress did not violate the Constitution by authorizing the FCC to administer the USF. The Telecommunications Act’s requirement that the FCC only collect amounts “sufficient” to support the program was found to be a meaningful limit, setting both a floor and a ceiling on contributions.

The Court also ruled that Congress imposed adequate spending constraints by clearly identifying eligible recipients: low-income consumers and schools, libraries, and hospitals in underserved areas.

Finally, the Court determined that USAC’s role did not violate the non-delegation doctrine’s prohibition on the delegation of authority to private parties because USAC was only authorized to make recommendations. Final decisions on contribution amounts and fund allocation remained with the FCC, preserving constitutional accountability.

The Impact

Had the Court upheld the 5th Circuit’s decision, it would have upended the funding mechanism supporting over $4 billion in annual E-rate subsidies and threatened digital learning initiatives, school connectivity upgrades, and the businesses that serve this space.

The decision avoids significant disruption and ensures that critical technology initiatives in underserved communities can continue without pause. Now that this battle is in our rearview mirror, schools and libraries can continue relying on E-rate support as they plan for the upcoming academic year. Vendors and consultants serving this space should also feel confident in the program’s long-term stability – at least under the current statutory framework.

Conclusion

Be sure to subscribe to Fisher Phillips’ Insight System to keep up with the most up-to-date information. In the meantime, if you have questions, reach out to your Fisher Phillips attorney, the author of this Insight, or any attorney in our Education Team or Technology Industry Team.