Mozilla Re-Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
According to Mozilla&#x27;s legal filing, they are claiming it violates the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because the FCC&#x27;s decision was...wait for it...<i>&quot;arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion&quot;</i>.<p>Sounds like they are basically throwing a temper tantrum and grasping at straws.  Their argument essentially amounts to &quot;We believe this ruling is so bad that it can&#x27;t possibly be allowed to go through.  This is a clear violation of their statutory mandate.&quot;<p>I find arguments like this truly astounding because no one was claiming they were violating federal law before they implemented the net neutrality regulations.  To me, this is eerily similar to the recent DACA ruling where the federal judge required that DACA must be kept in force for the time being while everything is being sorted out.  But the reason the judge gave was pretty telling - <i>&quot;The question before the court is thus not whether defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so.&quot;</i>  That sounds pretty much exactly like the argument we are seeing here.  In fact, the author of the CNN article I grabbed that judge&#x27;s quote from also uses the same language about Trump&#x27;s move on DACA being <i>&quot;arbitrary and capricious&quot;</i>.<p>Searching these phrases online you will find this all relates to the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.  There are two types of judicial review under this act - the arbitrary and capricious review and the substantial evidence review.  Obviously, based on these filings, this would fall under the former.  That does require a reasonable explanation for the decision.  However, given the nature of this topic the justification is obvious - that a huge portion of the country supports the elimination of DACA.  That a judge would ignore this is unconscionable.  The only other option under this law is to go after the decision as a violation of the separation of powers.  However, if it is ruled as such, that also means that Obama&#x27;s 2012 creation of the DACA program was also a violation of the separation of powers and thus the DACA program would need to be shut down.<p>Whether you are in favor of net neutrality or against it - in favor of DACA or not, the law needs to be the law.  All of this judicial nonsense reeks of political games.  And every time judges uphold stuff like this based on these ridiculous, spurious arguments, the Rule of Law continues to degrade and our nation suffers.