National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services
Citation: 545 U.S. 967 (2005)
Facts
The FCC classified broadband cable internet service as an “information service” rather than a “telecommunications service,” exempting it from common-carrier regulation. A prior Ninth Circuit decision had held that cable internet service was a “telecommunications service.” Brand X argued the earlier judicial decision controlled.
Issue
When a court has previously interpreted a statute, and an agency later adopts a different interpretation entitled to Chevron deference, which interpretation controls?
Holding
An agency’s Chevron-entitled interpretation prevails over a prior judicial statutory interpretation, unless the prior decision held the statute unambiguous (holding the statute has only one permissible reading). If the court previously held only that the agency’s prior interpretation was permissible (or if the court filled a statutory gap itself), the agency may adopt a different permissible interpretation.
Rule
Brand X rule: A court’s prior statutory interpretation does not bar an agency from adopting a different interpretation under Chevron if: (1) the court’s prior reading was not an interpretation of a clearly unambiguous statute, and (2) the agency’s new interpretation is a reasonable reading of an ambiguous statute.
Significance
- Important for understanding the relationship between Chevron deference and stare decisis
- Allows agencies to update statutory interpretations as technology and circumstances change, even against prior judicial interpretations
- The Brand X rule is now of historical interest as Chevron was overruled in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) — courts now exercise independent judgment on statutory interpretation