The Supreme Court will not reconsider the decision that upheld the rules of neutrality of the Obama-Obama Net: NPR

The Supreme Court rejected attempts by telecom companies to overturn the decision of a lower court upholding the network neutrality rules imposed by the Obama administration. AT & T and other telecommunications companies were asking the court to quash the decision; the Federal Communications Commission canceled network neutrality last year.

In addition to the telecom companies, the FCC itself was supportive of rescinding the decision that was maintaining its rules of the 2015 era, according to Jessica Rosenworcel, Democrat Commissioner.

"That was not enough for the FCC to restore #NetNeutrality," Rosenworcel said in a tweet. "She actually asked the Supreme Court to erase history and delete an earlier court ruling upholding open internet policies." But today, the Supreme Court has refused to do it."

She added, "Let's call it interesting."

The legal measures reflected the desire of conservatives and industry stakeholders to cement the FCC's repeal of network neutrality rules, designed to limit the ability of Internet service providers to manipulate web site loading speeds or specific applications.

The rejection came after two Conservative judges – Chief Justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh – "took no part in the review or decision of these petitions," the court said Monday.

Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch escaped the process. The court's opinion indicates that the three judges wanted to "grant the motions, set aside the judgment of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and remit it to the Court with the Order to classify the business as irrelevant ".

As for why Roberts and Kavanaugh recused themselves, Amy Howe of SCOTUSBlog reports:

"The new judge of the court, Brett Kavanaugh, had to abstain from voting on the petitions because he had participated in the trials while he was on the circuit of the DC, and he l '. But Chief Justice John Roberts is also challenged – presumably no way to know for sure – because he owns shares in one of the companies challenging the rules. "

TechFreedom, notes one of the plaintiffs in the case, wrote that Mr. Kavanaugh had written "a strong disagreement over the BC Circuit's decision last year not to repeat a decision of the court upholding the 2015 order ".

Several of the complainants in this case stated that the rejection was not surprising, given that the FCC had already repealed net neutrality.

"Today's decision does not indicate the Court's opinion on the merits, but merely reflects the fact that there was nothing left for the Court to adjudicate" , said the Internet and Television Association.

Nevertheless, the rejection of the High Court preserves the appellate court's ruling as a possible precedent and increases the chances of the problem resurfacing if the FCC changes its composition – which would happen if the Democrats could recapture the White House in 2020.

The repeal of internet neutrality by the FCC is also the subject of separate legal battles, having been challenged by technology companies and advocacy groups, in addition to more from 20 US states.