The First Amendment Case Against FCC IP Telephony Regulation

This Comment argues that IP telephony, like handbills and traditional print media, deserves First Amendment protection against FCC regulatory authority. After briefly reviewing the IP telephony phenomenon within the larger context of digital convergence, the Comment examines the FCC and Supreme Court’s technologically driven First Amendment jurisprudence—particularly, the First Amendment’s conspicuous absence from the IP telephony dialogue, and, correspondingly, the prominence of assurances of regulatory forbearance in Congress, the courts, and the FCC. In response, the Author offers First Amendment content-based and content-neutral arguments against the proposed telephony regulations. At the very least, the affordability and innovation IP telephony offers should constitute nontrivial factors in a court’s content-neutral balancing. Finally, the Comment proposes divorcing universal access funding from long-distance service as an approach to avoid burdening the First Amendment values IP telephony serves as well as side-step the category difficulties digital convergence creates

Characterizing Power for Separation-of-Powers Purposes

The U.S. Constitution parcels legislative, executive, and judicial powers among the separate branches of the federal government, but leaves those powers undefined. Accordingly, characterizing exercises of power becomes an important threshold inquiry in separation-of-powers disputes. This symposium Essay canvasses four competing judicial approaches to the characterization of power: functional inquiry; identity-of-the-officer formalism; historical induction; and skepticism. In this area, Justice Scalia\u27s formalism has been particularly influential but created considerable tension with original public meaning originalism. This Essay explains how Scalia\u27s formalism led to his embrace of delegation and concludes by cautioning against judicial oversimplification in the characterization inquiry

Američki imigracijski mikrofederalizam: liberalne i restiktivne savezne države i lokalne vlasti te sukob

Immigration power is thought to be a federal power in the United States, but the States and their localities play key roles in filling congressional immigration policy gaps. When confronted with a major migration crisis, these microfederal jurisdictions in a multi-layered federal system respond differently to the policy gaps. A healthy tolerance for microfederal policies promotes this experimentation and voter preference maximisation. A countervailing interest in uniformity, among other values, tempers the case for microfederalism by suggesting temporal or other limitations may be justified. States and localities have experimented with microfederal policies concerning migrants that touch on migration and integration policy. Restrictionist jurisdictions have promoted policies that discourage migration and integration. Their strategies include: formal cooperation with federal immigration enforcement when restrictionist in policy orientation; adoption of independent state-law measures to supplement federal immigration enforcement; and litigation to attempt to force or realign federal executive enforcement priorities on migration and integration. Sanctuary jurisdictions adopt inverse strategies. They may decline to participate in voluntary federal programs; refuse to access available federal immigration status information; deny federal requests to cooperate with federal detainer requests; provide access to State and local services to all comers, without regard to legal status; and, like restrictionist jurisdictions, litigate to attempt to force or realign the federal government’s enforcement priorities to favour migration and integration. Inevitably, conflict between federal and state administration results in litigation. The federal government attempts to assert its primacy in those matters touching on alien regulation. During the Trump administration, this effort has included the likely unconstitutional Executive Order 13768, but also the threat of affirmative federal pre-emption litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions. Provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act may provide Trump with a basis for arguing that federal law expressly or impliedly pre-oempts conflicting state law.Premda se u SAD-u imigracijska politika smatra dijelom ovlasti saveznih vlasti, savezne države i lokalne vlasti imaju ključnu ulogu u oblikovanju cjelovite imigracijske politike zemlje. Kad se suoče s velikim migrantskim krizama, državne i lokalne vlasti u američkom sustavu višerazinskog upravljanja reagiraju na različite načine te različito dopunjavaju saveznu imigracijsku politiku. Takvo eksperimentiranje i nastojanje za postizanjem najbolje podrške vlastitih birača omogućava zdrava tolerancija prema sudjelovanju saveznih država i lokalnih vlasti u oblikovanju javnih politika. Tome suprotno nastojanje za uniformnošću javnih politika na čitavom teritoriju SAD-a, uz ostale vrijednosti koje djeluju u istom smjeru, može opravdati vremenska i druga ograničenja ovlasti država i lokalnih vlasti. Savezne države i lokalne vlasti eksperimentiraju sa svojim migracijskim i integracijskim politikama. Restriktivne države i lokalne vlasti promoviraju politike koje obeshrabruju migracije i integraciju migranata. Njihove strategije ključuju: formalnu suradnju sa saveznim imigracijskim vlastima kad savezna razina zastupa restriktivnu imigracijsku politiku, donošenje vlastitih pravnih propisa na razini saveznih država kojima se dopunjava provedba saveznih zakona te pokretanje sudskih postupaka kojima bi se utjecalo na provedbu restriktivnih saveznih imigracijskih i integracijskih mjera. Liberalne vlasti na razini saveznih država i lokalne samouprave imaju potpuno drugačije strategije. One smiju odbiti sudjelovati u onim saveznim programima koji nisu obligatorni, smiju odbiti koristiti stvarno postojeće savezne podatke o statusu imigranata, odbiti zahtjeve za zadržavanjem osoba koji dolaze sa savezne razine, omogućiti pristup državnim i lokalnim službama svim osobama koje ga žele bez provjere statusa, te, slično kao i restriktivne vlasti, pokretati sudske postupke kojima bi se utjecalo na savezne vlasti tako da djeluju u korist migracija i integracije migranata. Stoga sukobi saveznih i državnih vlasti neizbježno završavaju sudskim postupcima. Savezne vlasti nastoje uspostaviti svoj primat u pravnoj regulaciji statusa stranaca. Za vrijeme predsjednika Trumpa ta nastojanja uključuju donošenje po svemu sudeći neustavne Izvršne uredbe broj 13768 te prijetnju pokretanjem sudskog postupka protiv liberalnih državnih i lokalnih vlasti ne bi li se sudski utvrdio primat savezne razine u imigracijskoj politici. Odredbe Zakona o imigraciji i državljanstvu mogle bi Trampu dati osnovu za tumačenje da savezni zakon izričito ili prešutno ima prednost pred zakonima koje donose savezne države

The First Amendment Case Against FCC IP Telephony Regulation

This Comment argues that IP telephony, like handbills and traditional print media, deserves First Amendment protection against FCC regulatory authority. After briefly reviewing the IP telephony phenomenon within the larger context of digital convergence, the Comment examines the FCC and Supreme Court’s technologically driven First Amendment jurisprudence—particularly, the First Amendment’s conspicuous absence from the IP telephony dialogue, and, correspondingly, the prominence of assurances of regulatory forbearance in Congress, the courts, and the FCC. In response, the Author offers First Amendment content-based and content-neutral arguments against the proposed telephony regulations. At the very least, the affordability and innovation IP telephony offers should constitute nontrivial factors in a court’s content-neutral balancing. Finally, the Comment proposes divorcing universal access funding from long-distance service as an approach to avoid burdening the First Amendment values IP telephony serves as well as side-step the category difficulties digital convergence creates