{"id":178521,"date":"2018-11-05T19:34:00","date_gmt":"2018-11-06T00:34:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2018\/11\/05\/good-news-sort-of\/"},"modified":"2018-11-05T19:34:00","modified_gmt":"2018-11-06T00:34:00","slug":"good-news-sort-of","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2018\/11\/05\/good-news-sort-of\/","title":{"rendered":"Good News, Sort Of"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court has denied cert for the appeals court ruling supporting the Obama Administration’s net neutrality rules<\/a>, which means that the precedent stands, though the regulation has been emasculated by Ajit Pai and Evil Minions\u2122<\/sup>:<\/p>\n

This morning the Supreme Court issued orders<\/a> from the justices\u2019 private conference on Friday. The justices did not add any new cases to their docket for the term \u2013 they did that on Friday<\/a> afternoon \u2013 nor did they call for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in any cases. But one order today in particular was significant: The justices declined to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upholding the Obama administration\u2019s \u201cnet neutrality\u201d rules, which (generally speaking) required internet service providers to treat all traffic on the internet equally. <\/p>\n

The rules, which were issued in 2015, have since been replaced by a 2018 order by the Federal Communications Commission eliminating net neutrality, so the justices were not expected to weigh in on the merits of these cases. Instead, the real question was the fate of the D.C. Circuit\u2019s decision upholding the rules: Would the Supreme Court allow it to stand \u2013 which would mean that it could serve as precedent for future cases \u2013 or would the justices instead invalidate the D.C. Circuit\u2019s decision and send it back with directions to dismiss the cases as moot (a doctrine known as Munsingwear vacatur<\/a><\/i>), because the net neutrality rules are no longer in effect?<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Roberts and Kavanaugh both recused, which is probably why the precedent was allowed to stand.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court has denied cert for the appeals court ruling supporting the Obama Administration’s net neutrality rules, which means that the precedent stands, though the regulation has been emasculated by Ajit Pai and Evil Minions\u2122: This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices\u2019 private conference on Friday. The justices did not add …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[367,407,437],"class_list":["post-178521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-internet","tag-justice","tag-regulation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178521"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=178521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}