JOLT Digest

DC District Court Orders a Halt to Federally Funded Embryonic Stem Cell Research
By Jessica Palmer – Edited by Ryan Ward

Sherley v. Sebelius, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86441 (D.D.C. August 23, 2010)
Memorandum Opinion

On August 23, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s July 2009 guidelines for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research. Judge Royce Lamberth held that “because the Guidelines allow federal funding of ESC [Embryonic Stem Cell] research, which involves the destruction of embryos,” federal funding for hESC research “clearly violate[s]” the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.

The Dickey-Wicker Amendment, an appropriations bill rider originally passed in 1996 and renewed each appropriations cycle thereafter, prohibits the use of appropriated funds for “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed.” P.L. 111-8 § 509 (2009). Judge Lamberth rejected the government’s argument that, under Dickey-Wicker, NIH could support research on hESCs, as long as federal funding did not support the initial derivation of the stem cell lines from human embryos. Judge Lamberth reasoned that the NIH’s interpretation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment did not deserve Chevron deference because the statute is unambiguous: “the language of the statute reflects the unambiguous intent of Congress to enact a broad prohibition of funding research in which a human embryo is destroyed. This prohibition encompasses all ‘research in which’ an embryo is destroyed, not just the ‘piece of research’ in which the embryo is destroyed.”

Professor Glenn Cohen of Harvard Law School criticized the order at Concurring Opinions, arguing that “it is hard to find that the statute is ‘unambiguous’ in Chevron terms in the way Lamberth says.” Professor Russell Korobkin of UCLA, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy, found the grant of a preliminary injunction “troubling” because “the balance of hardships tilts strongly in the direction of hESC researchers and the patients who hope their work will lead to cures, not in the direction of the plaintiffs who might see their chances of winning a grant reduced.” Both Cohen and Korobkin predicted that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will reverse the district court’s grant of an injunction. (more…)

By Jyoti Uppuluri

UK Passes Controversial Digital Economy Bill

The Guardian and the Electronic Frontier Foundation reported that on April 8, the U.K. Parliament passed the controversial Digital Economy Bill in a late-night “wash-up” session after just two hours of debate. Two provisions of the bill in particular raised concerns among the citizenry and telecommunications companies in the U.K. The Guardian reports that the bill contains a broad-ranging clause allowing the Secretary of State for Business to block a site that “has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright.” EFF notes that the bill also includes a provision allowing for the disconnection of the “Internet connection of any household in the U.K. with an IP address alleged to have engaged in copyright infringement.”

30-Year Computer Ban for Sex Offender Overturned by DC Court of Appeals

Wired reported that on April 2, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated a 30-year computer ban imposed on a sex-offender as a condition of his supervised release. The Court stated that the immutable ban on computer use was “substantively unreasonable” and “aggressively interferes with the goal of rehabilitation,” including obtaining employment. Citizen Media Law Project argues that while the overturning of the ban was a good outcome, the reasoning of the court is troublesome due to its implication that a computer ban providing for a shorter duration and probation officer approved waivers would be acceptable.

Spy Network Targeting Indian Government Uncovered

Ars Technica reported that the researchers who previously uncovered GhostNet, a spy network targeting Tibetan exiles, have recently uncovered a separate network targeting the Indian government, among other entities. This network has been traced back to a hacking community in Chengdu, China. The majority of machines attacked by the network are associated with India, including “Indian embassies and consulates,” as well as commercial groups like the Times of India and the New Delhi rail station. The spy network obtained “everything from information on missile systems being developed by India to a list of visas issued by Indian embassies.”

D.C. Circuit Denies FCC Jurisdiction to Mandate Net Neutrality
By Tyler Lacey – Edited by Jad Mills

Comcast Corp. v FCC, No. 08-1291 (D.C. Cir., Apr. 6, 2010)
Slip Opinion

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated an order issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which had asserted jurisdiction over Comcast’s network management policies and had ordered Comcast to cease discriminating against peer-to-peer network traffic.

The D.C. Circuit held that the FCC does not have ancillary jurisdiction over Comcast’s Internet service under the language of the Communications Act of 1934, which grants the FCC the power to “perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with [the Act], as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.” 47 U.S.C. § 154(i). The Court did not find a sufficient statutory basis in the FCC’s mandate to provide “rapid, efficient” communications services to authorize it to regulate the behavior of Internet service providers.

Internet Evolution describes the Court as having “managed to completely destroy the very foundation upon which the FCC has based its net neutrality rules” and questions the necessity of any internet regulation at all. The Wall Street Journal argues that this decision “deal[s] a blow to big Web commerce companies and other proponents of ‘net neutrality.’” However, Wired reports that the FCC remains optimistic that it can still achieve its goal of “preserving an open internet” because the “court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open internet [n]or did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.” Comcast responded to the Court’s decision by declaring that it “remains committed to the FCC’s existing open Internet principles, and . . . will continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet.” (more…)