In a significant legal setback for President Joe Biden’s administration, a U.S. appeals court has struck down the Biden-backed net neutrality regulations, siding with opponents who argue that government overreach could stifle innovation. The ruling marks the latest chapter in the ongoing battle over how to regulate the internet and its infrastructure, an issue that has sparked deep divides between government regulators, internet service providers (ISPs), and consumers.
The case centers on the Biden administration’s efforts to restore net neutrality rules, which were first enacted during the Obama administration in 2015, only to be repealed by the Trump administration in 2017. Net neutrality requires ISPs to treat all internet data equally, prohibiting practices such as throttling speeds, blocking content, or charging additional fees for faster access.
In 2021, President Biden signed an executive order urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reinstate these rules, citing concerns about fairness in internet access and preventing potential abuses by large telecom companies. The appeals court, however, disagreed with the administration’s approach, citing a 2023 Supreme Court decision (Loper Bright) that redefined the scope of government agency powers, particularly in areas of regulatory discretion.
“The application of the Loper Bright ruling means we can end the FCC’s vacillations,” the appeals court noted in its ruling, signaling a shift away from expansive government regulation of the internet. This decision highlights the increasing influence of conservative legal principles on tech policy and regulatory practices.
Brendan Carr, the incoming Chairman of the FCC, has been a vocal critic of the Biden administration’s net neutrality agenda. Carr, who voted against reinstating net neutrality during his tenure as Commissioner, welcomed the court’s decision, calling Biden’s efforts an “internet power grab.” He argued that the push to reinstate the regulations represents a break from a bipartisan consensus that had previously provided a stable framework for internet policy.
In a statement following the appeals court ruling, Carr reaffirmed his commitment to unwinding the current administration’s regulatory agenda. “Today’s decision is a victory for the American people. The Biden administration’s attempts to impose sweeping government control over the internet ecosystem have been overreaching,” Carr said. “We’ve seen this in their efforts to pressure social media companies into censorship and their attempts to impose burdensome ‘digital equity’ rules on the internet.”
Carr further argued that the reinstatement of net neutrality under Biden’s executive order was an attempt to impose “utility-style” regulations on the internet, akin to those governing traditional utilities like electricity and water. He contended that such regulations would undermine the growth and innovation of the internet, a critical sector of the U.S. economy.
“The Biden administration’s push for Title II regulations marked a dramatic departure from the balanced, bipartisan approach established nearly three decades ago,” Carr continued. “This policy agenda put the stability of the internet at risk, and we are committed to rolling back these overreaching rules in favor of a more balanced regulatory approach.”
The appeals court decision has broad implications for the future of internet regulation in the U.S., particularly in the areas of digital equity, competition, and consumer rights. While the Biden administration may still seek to challenge the ruling, the legal landscape is now set for a prolonged debate over how much control government agencies should have in shaping the rules that govern the internet.
The debate over net neutrality reflects broader tensions about the role of government in regulating emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and data privacy. As the FCC continues to grapple with the future of net neutrality, the court ruling marks a turning point that could lead to less government intervention and greater reliance on market forces to govern how the internet operates.
Read more: