12/14/2024
I filed this complaint a while back, and in lieu of a reply brief, the FCC's Solicitor general posted a pre-motion preview of her case, which among other things cited sovereign immunity and standing, and other means of objection available directly at the agency.
The Judge issued an order asking if I'd like to reply, and this is where things got interesting.
I cite Loper Bright, to give my self all the above (standing, subject matter jurisdiction, and sovereign immunity), to actively compel an agency to regulate, and the judge, rather than dismissing the whole case, as I assume the solicitor general was expecting, the judge set a briefing schedule.
In any case, Loper Bright is the recent SCOTUS decision that ended Chevron Deference and permits the court to be more involved in regulatory oversight (for the purpose of restraining regulators), and I argue that because of that decision, the courts can also become more involved in compelling regulation that the agency is not doing, if it be in the public interest.
This could open up so many doors to oversight when agencies aren't regulating ENOUGH if the court accepts this argument, just the fact that they're going to entertain it, is kinda awesome. The case asks the court to revoke fox's licenses nationally until they can demonstrate to the fcc, and the fcc to the court, that they're not in the business of lying to us anymore (as per the $782M settlement with Dominion Voting systems court documents)
コメント