Amy Coney Barrett Takes Issue With Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court Move
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett voiced her concerns this week in response to Justice Clarence Thomas.
The nondelegation doctrine, which prevents Congress from shifting its primary legislative power to federal agencies or other unelected officials, is something conservatives are keen to see reinstated, according to Newsweek.
Barrett, appointed by former President Donald Trump, raised serious reservations on March 27 about reviving the doctrine. Having been largely dormant since the 1930s, its reimplementation could significantly curtail the authority of government agencies.
This also highlights Barrett’s evolving role on the court, as she distances herself from Thomas’s firm conservatism and instead adopts a more moderate stance on various social matters.
The Supreme Court was tasked with determining the legality of an FCC fund that mandates communications companies contribute to financing phone and internet access in rural and economically challenged regions. The case, Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, was argued on March 26.
A considerable portion of this financial burden is subsequently transferred to consumers by the communications providers.
On a broader scale, Justice Thomas suggested that invoking the nondelegation doctrine could restrict the FCC and other federal agencies from raising revenue through taxation.
Barrett, however, pushed back, asserting that placing a cap would not be effective. “$3 trillion or $5 trillion, that’s just kind of throwing a number out there for the sake of throwing a number,” she remarked.
She also posed direct questions to Trent McCotter, the legal representative for Consumers’ Research, a conservative organization that, as stated on its website, promotes tax reductions and the elimination of “woke” politics.
When McCotter asserted, “At its heart this case is about taxation without representation,” Barrett challenged him, saying, “That seems a little bit hollow. That seems like a meaningless exercise.”
Barrett and Thomas have often taken opposing positions in Supreme Court cases.
During oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, a case evaluating whether individuals under domestic violence restraining orders should have the right to possess firearms, Barrett was clear in her strong opposition to Thomas’s perspective.
In June 2024, Thomas questioned Rahimi’s lawyer on why a civil remedy such as a restraining order should impact a criminal defendant’s rights.
Barrett promptly produced a copy of the restraining order, which prohibits Rahimi from contacting his former girlfriend or her daughter.
She then highlighted the allegations against Rahimi, which included intimidation and threats, as documented in the restraining order.
By doing so, Barrett was demonstrating her opposition to Thomas’s strict originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment. Thomas’s legal philosophy holds that only the explicit text of the Constitution should be considered—asserting that the right to bear arms should remain untouched.
When Congress established the FCC in 1934, one of its key objectives was to “make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.” This was noted by then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in her petition for the Supreme Court to hear the FCC case.
She argued that the FCC’s fund for underserved areas is essential in achieving universal communication access.
On March 26, the law firm Boyden Gray, which represents Consumers’ Research, issued a statement asserting that the FCC’s fund “has been riddled with fraud—millions misused on luxury condos, private jets, and club memberships.”
Furthermore, despite substantial expenditures, the Government Accountability Office reportedly found no measurable improvement in [phone and internet] service.
The Supreme Court is expected to deliberate on the case for several months before issuing a written decision, which will likely be released in late 2024 or early 2025.