Trump's Justice Department tells court to block California net neutrality law

Originally published at:

California AG office reviewing DoJ filing, “[We] look forward to defending California’s state net neutrality protections.”


please help me understand how a federal law that was REPEALED can be used to block state law. doesn’t the fact that a law that was REPEALED mean that the law doesn’t exist any more? obviously i am not a lawyer.


It wasn’t a federal law that was repealed but rather agency rules. The US Court of Appeals has already said the FCC could not stop individual states from passing such laws, so I don’t see this going anywhere.

So much for the state’s rights party…


It’s the party of trump anything else has been thrown away months ago.

It’s a free for all.


Both parties are and have been “corporate rights” parties for a while now, just the Republicans are more blatant and aggressive about it.

(Not saying both parties are the same in any way, just that they are very similar in this regard)


For all its talk of secession, anyone else get the feeling Texas/“The South” is going to get beaten to the punch by Cali?


The Republicans have never actually defended “States’ Rights” except in cases when states demand the right to oppress women, religious and ethnic minorities or LGBT people.


Help me understand, for I am not a lawyer. How does the federal government have standing in this case when they aren’t the offended party?

I could see it if a business was impacted by this California law, and they could file a case to overturn the law on the basis of some aspect of states overstepping their authority when it comes to federal regulations. At that point a precedent can be set.

But to preemptively strike down a law in order, perhaps to set a precedent when conditions are politically favorable, seems counter to the way our legal system has worked for 100’s of years.


If trump wins in November it will be very hard to stay.


Some of us remember back when the FCC first considered requiring “last mile” carriers to allow other ISPs to use their wires to provide end-user service e.g. DSL, the argument was that this should be left to the States. Now the States shouldn’t be permitted to regulate those “last mile” services.



Didn’t the ruling previously specifically state that they basically punted it to the states since the FCC’s rules were now so weak? You know, 10th amendment, states rights, yadda yadda?


Likely because its making the feds look bad. I think the legal doctrine in question is E. Pluribus Ignoramus.


Disappointing to hear that we’re operating a banana republic.


Or to repatriate freed enslaved people. Ok, it wasn’t Republicans, but it was the same damn people then as now.


A conversation everybody should be having.

Not everyone is privileged enough to be able to leave. And many countries will not take us right now anyway.


the party of “trump-anything-else”

1 Like

I actually meant hard for California as a state to stay. I don’t plan to cede any ground.

1 Like

Well, last time states tried to leave, it was not pretty (albeit for a different reason). And of course, lots of people can’t afford to live in California, too.

Our only hope is getting the orange turd out of office.


The case can be found here:

The DOJ amended its earlier request for a declaratory judgement against SB-822 and tweaked its arguments a little bit.

This case was on hold while Mozilla Corp v. FCC made it through the appeals courts. The outcome was that the court vacated “the portion of the 2018 Order purporting to preempt ‘any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with [the Commission’s] deregulatory approach[,]’”

The DOJ is thus taking a slightly different tack, which is that they are saying that SB-822 presents an obstacle for the enforcement of the policies of the 2018 Order, which subject SB-822 to preemption under the supremacy clause. They also argue that internet access is interstate commerce and thus preempted by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

The Mozilla Corp v. FCC opinion makes it pretty clear that these arguments don’t hold water. It talks about how a policy statement does not make for regulatory authority, how the FCC doesn’t simply get preemption authority by pointing to the Communications Act under existing case law, and how mere interconnection does not for interstate comerce make.

It sounds like this is amending the complaint and seeing what will stick, but given that there are no new arguments, I’d be surprised if this succeeds.