Yet Another Anti-Constitution California Law Could Again Test the New Ninth Circuit Court

Seton Motley | Less Government |
Seton Motley | Less Government |
Not Visible Due to the Conflagration:
California’s Dumpster

We have recently twice explored President Donald Trump’s transformational ten appointments to the once-wildly-insane Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

When the Ninth Circuit Court Unanimously Says You’ve Gone Too Far Left….

Ninth Circus Court No More? Trump-McConnell’s Judges Have Made Huge Differences Everywhere

Recent outstanding decisions coming therefrom?

A hugely important defense of Intellectual Property (IP) and its licensing.

A proper ordering of federalism – rightly ruling the 5G wireless WORLD Wide Web is the proper purview of the federal government.

And a Second Amendment-defending overturn of California’s anti-Constitutional law banning basically all gun magazines.

Speaking of the Internet and California’s serial inanity….

California rigidly insists on incessantly violating the Constitution.  It’s their jam.

As we’ve repeatedly documented.

Localities Shouldn’t Be Dictating (Inter-)National Policy

Leftists Do Federalism Terribly – To Then Do Policy Terribly

Immigration, Internet,…: The Left’s Warped, Ridiculously Fake Federalism

The Ninth Circuit just ruled that California’s state law banning gun magazines – was an illegal intrusion upon the federal government’s purview.

The Ninth Circuit just ruled the Internet – is the federal government’s purview.


California Senate Passes SB 822, the ‘Gold Standard’ of State Net Neutrality Laws

What Does California’s New Data Privacy Law Mean?

It means with these two laws – California is yet again ignoring the obvious fact the Internet is the purview of the federal government.

Thankfully, some really good people (many of whom are friends of mine) who subjected themselves to law school – are on the Net Neutrality case.

Larry Spiwak is the President of the Phoenix Center – and the lead counsel on the amicus brief these law school victims have filed.  In his email announcing said filing, Spiwak wrote:

“The focus of the amicus brief was on the doctrine of ‘field preemption.’

“In particular, the amicus brief discusses Congress’s long-standing determination that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over interstate communications, leaving no authority to the states to regulate such services.

“Indeed, as the brief demonstrates, throughout this history, and even in the 2015 Open Internet Order, the FCC has consistently recognized and reaffirmed that broadband Internet access service is a jurisdictionally interstate service.

“The fact that Congress may have afforded states a limited cooperative role in select, statutorily itemized areas does not mean that Congress has empowered the states with the concurrent authority to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of any interstate communications service.

“Accordingly, the brief argues that where, as here, a communications service is interstate, states are forbidden from regulating that service directly, whether the FCC regulates the field extensively or not at all.

“That principle applies all the more clearly given that the FCC has detailed at length in its 2018 RIFO how its continued oversight, enforced by its transparency rule, will preserve Internet openness.

“Second, the amicus brief provides several examples how the California law unconstitutionally intrudes into the FCC’s exclusive jurisdiction over interstate communications and is therefore subject to field preemption.

“To begin, the brief points out that the plain terms of SB-822 unambiguously define broadband Internet access as an interstate service, meaning that the law facially seeks to regulate interstate communications.

“Similarly, the brief also points out that SB-822’s improper intrusion into the FCC’s exclusive jurisdiction over interstate communications services impedes the agency’s ability to carry out Congressional instructions set forth under both Section 230 and Section 706 of the Communications Act.”

What all of this means is:

California – is a state.  So it has zero standing to pass any laws regarding the Internet – which is the exclusive purview of the federal government.

Spiwak and Friends’ filing – directly addresses California’s lack of standing to pass its Net Neutrality law.

(But it basically can also be used to toss California’s Internet data regulation law.  Because the State of California has zero standing to pass any laws regarding the Internet.)

Now, Spiwak and Friends’ brief was filed in the Eastern District of California.  But the first appeal of any decision thereby – goes to the newly Trump-ified Ninth Circuit.

And the Ninth Circuit just very recently ruled the Internet is the exclusive purview of the federal government.

And the Ninth Circuit just very recently ruled against another one of California’s very many anti-Constitutional laws – on the grounds that it violated an exclusive purview of the federal government.

Given that the Ninth Circuit is the Eastern District of California’s “parent” court – it should greatly matter to the lower court that the parent court has so recently ruled so strongly on things so pertinent to this case.

Here’s hoping….

This first appeared in Red State.