### Supreme Court to Hear Case That Could Curb Power of Federal Agencies

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a contentious case that may significantly limit the authority of federal agencies. This case scrutinizes a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initiative that mandates companies to subsidize telecommunications services in underserved regions, and it falls before a court with a 6-3 conservative majority sympathetic to reducing regulatory powers. The court also left open the possibility of dismissing the case if it is deemed moot.

At the core of this legal battle is whether Congress granted excessive authority to the FCC to decide on the subsidy amounts companies pay, which are now in the billions. The court's decision could potentially adopt the "nondelegation doctrine," a principle that the conservative justices have shown interest in. This doctrine would prevent Congress from enacting broad laws that allow agencies significant discretion. If the Supreme Court rules against the FCC, it could trigger judicial reviews of various federal regulatory activities, affecting areas from banking to environmental protection.

The FCC case presents two significant issues: whether Congress overstepped its powers and if the FCC has the right to delegate the authority to set payment amounts to a private company. Due to conflicting decisions in lower courts, both the FCC and a conservative group named Consumers' Research, which opposes the current system, have sought the Supreme Court's input.

The issue dates back to a 1996 law that mandated the FCC to create the Universal Service Fund, compelling telecommunications services to make payments supporting "universal service" in low-income and rural areas. In 1997, the FCC established the Universal Service Administrative Company, a private corporation, to handle the fund's administration. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against the FCC, prompting the agency to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

In recent months, the Supreme Court has delivered several rulings that restrict federal agencies' powers, including the overturning of a 40-year-old precedent that allowed agencies to interpret ambiguously written laws. All three cases were decided along ideological lines, with conservative justices in the majority. These rulings reflect a broader, long-term effort backed by business interests and conservative politicians to reduce the influence of the administrative state. President-elect Donald Trump, during his previous administration, chose judicial nominees based partly on their opposition to federal bureaucracy, some of whom now serve on the Supreme Court. The implications of a ruling limiting federal agency power could also pose challenges for Trump's plans to assert strong executive authority in his forthcoming term, including his strategy to impose broad tariffs.