NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 87

REPLY re #86 Response to Document filed by ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM. (Gupta, Deepak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL
SERVICES PROGRAM, NATIONAL
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, and
ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, for themselves
and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 16-745 (ESH)

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S NEW SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
At oral argument, the government referred to a case not cited in its briefs. Its latest filing
reveals that the case is in fact Rural Cellular Association v. FCC, 685 F.3d 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2012),
which rejected a constitutional challenge to an FCC requirement that certain carriers pay for a
broadband-access program. The carriers argued that Congress hadn’t clearly given the FCC
authority to recover costs that did not “inur[e] directly to [their] benefit.” But the court found
“no failure of inurement” because “the carriers’ contributions … support[ed] a program to
subsidize broadband Internet access from which those carriers will particularly benefit.” Id. at 1091.
Here, by contrast, the question is whether one group of people—those who wish to obtain
records via PACER—must pay fees to fund other services for other people, services from which they
will not “particularly benefit.” And here, by contrast, the question is whether to enforce a statute
that Congress enacted precisely to stop the Judiciary from charging fees that are more than
necessary to fund the particular service to the user. Once again, the AO ignores the key statutory
language: that “[a]ll fees ... collected” for services listed in the prescribed “schedule of fees” shall
be collected “as a charge for services rendered” to the user, “to reimburse expenses incurred in providing these
services,” and then “only to the extent necessary” to do so. 28 U.S.C. § 1913 note.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Deepak Gupta
Deepak Gupta
Jonathan E. Taylor
GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
1900 L Street, NW, Suite 312
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
William H. Narwold
Meghan S.B. Oliver
Elizabeth Smith
MOTLEY RICE LLC
401 9th St. NW, Suite 1001
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
March 29, 2018

Counsel for Plaintiffs National Veterans Legal Services
Program, National Consumer Law Center, Alliance for
Justice, and the Class
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 29, 2018, I electronically filed this document through this
Court’s CM/ECF system. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by
operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Deepak Gupta
Deepak Gupta