SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
January, 28 2022, 01:36pm EDT
Contact:
Timothy Karr: 201-533-8838, tkarr@freepress.net
US Court of Appeals Denies ISPs' Attempt to Block California's Landmark Net Neutrality Law
SAN FRANCISCO
On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a California federal district court's order denying a phone-and-cable-industry effort to prohibit enforcement of the state's landmark Net Neutrality law.
The California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act passed the Sacramento legislature and was signed into law by then-Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018. Industry groups representing companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon sought to prevent California from implementing the law, which the state put in place to fill the void left by the Trump FCC's 2017 repeal of federal open-internet rules.
The district court concluded that California was within its rights to step into the vacuum created by the Trump FCC ruling and to pass a law that prevents internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against websites, apps, and content chosen by internet users in California. In 2020 and 2021, Free Press joined Access Now, Mozilla, New America's Open Technology Institute, and Public Knowledge to file amicus briefs at the district-court and appellate-court levels in defense of California's legislation.
Lawyers representing ISPs had made meritless claims that the Trump FCC's decision preempted state laws in this field, preventing states from stepping in to protect internet users exposed by the 2017 federal repeal. The Trump FCC repeal also ditched the agency's Title II authority to treat broadband as an essential telecommunications service, jeopardizing its ability to make broadband more affordable, ubiquitous, and competitive.
Free Press Vice President of Policy and General Counsel Matt Wood said:
"More than three years ago, California passed a strong and bipartisan Net Neutrality bill restoring vital nondiscrimination protections that the Trump administration had jettisoned on the federal stage. Now the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the state's ability to move forward with this law. The judges dismissed a bevy of pointless phone-and cable-company arguments that have now been rejected by courts on both coasts.
"This decision is a huge step forward, but the California law had an impact even before it cleared this latest court hurdle. Industry lobbyists and other Net Neutrality opponents have argued, loudly but cynically, that the repeal of the FCC's rules had no impact. But the passage of this strong state law meant ISPs still had to respect open-internet principles even before this latest victory, because they knew their stall tactics in the Ninth Circuit were likely to fail, as they now have twice.
"But while today's ruling is great news, the job isn't done. This win is significant because it offers protections to people in our most populous state and drives the national conversation forward. Yet tremendous as it is, we still need the Biden FCC to reclaim its authority not just for nationwide open-internet rules, but for policies promoting affordable, resilient, just, and reasonable internet connections for everyone.
"That starts with the U.S. Senate moving quickly to confirm Gigi Sohn as the FCC's fifth commissioner so the agency can begin to restore these essential safeguards. After the Commerce Committee vote on her nomination next Wednesday, we need swift action on the floor to put the FCC fully back to work."
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
Corbyn Submits Gaza Tribunal Findings of UK ‘Complicity in Genocide’ to ICC
"The report recommends a full investigation by the International Criminal Court into Britain’s complicity and participation in genocide," said the leftist lawmaker.
Mar 18, 2026
A report led by progressive British parliamentarian Jeremy Corbyn and submitted Wednesday to the International Criminal Court recommends that the Hague-based tribunal investigate UK government officials complicit in Israel's genocide in Gaza.
"The Gaza Tribunal report exposes the full scale of Britain's complicity in genocide," said Corbyn, a former Labour leader who represents Islington North for the leftist Your Party. "Complicity demands consequences. That's why, today, we submitted The Gaza Tribunal report to the International Criminal Court (ICC)."
"The report concludes that the British government has failed in its fundamental obligation to prevent genocide, has been complicit in atrocity crimes, and in some instances has even been an active participant in these crimes," Corbyn wrote in a foreword to the publication. "The report recommends a full investigation by the International Criminal Court into Britain’s complicity and participation in genocide."
According to the report, "Britain has played a vital role in Israeli military operations in Gaza," including through weapons sales, Royal Air Force surveillance flights, diplomatic support, and failure to sanction Israeli officials responsible for a war that United Nations experts, jurists, scholars, national and other governments, and others say is genocidal.
Report co-author and international law professor Shahd Hammouri said: “In our hands we have evidence that British officials knowingly hid the truth and distorted the truth. They had the legal advice and chose to overlook it. British citizens in good conscience who sought to uphold their legal and moral obligations of standing up against power were threatened with their livelihoods and asked to either quit their jobs or shut the hell up."
In 2024, the ICC issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also in The Hague, is weighing a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa and supported by an increasing number of nations.
"Israel has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Gaza," the tribunal's report states. "The genocide in Gaza must be understood within its historical context: as part of a decadeslong, ongoing, and systematic effort to destroy the Palestinian people in whole or in part. We heard from a range of witnesses who described in devastating detail the human and social reality of displacement, ethnic cleansing, and genocide."
The report notes the deliberate destruction of Gaza's healthcare and education systems, targeting of journalists, and famine caused by Israel's "complete siege" of the embattled strip.
The Gaza Tribunal report notes the UK's legal obligations under international law, which include:
- The immediate suspension of arms transfers and related military exports where there is a serious risk of use in genocide, crimes against humanity, or grave international humanitarian law violations;
- The suspension of intelligence sharing, training, and other security cooperation that could materially assist unlawful acts;
- Measures to ensure nonrecognition and nonassistance in respect of Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territories, including review of its existing trade and investment relations with Israel and Israeli entities;
- Support for humanitarian relief and opposition to policies producing famine conditions; and
- Full cooperation with international bodies of accountability, including the ICC, ICJ, and the relevant United Nations special rapporteurs, among others.
The publication of the Gaza Tribunal report—which is related in spirit and method to a separate Gaza Tribunal headed by former UN special rapporteur Richard Falk—follows last year's finding by the Corbyn-led body that Britain is complicit in the Gaza genocide.
The UK government has also faced international condemnation for persecuting members of Palestine Action and other activists. Last month, the British High Court ruled that the government illegally banned the protest group, some of whose members nearly died while on recent hunger strikes.
The report also comes as Israeli forces continue killing, maiming, and forcibly displacing Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, where the ICJ found in 2024 that Israel is guilty of illegal occupation and apartheid.
To date, more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded in Gaza, according to officials there. Around 2 million others have been forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Memorializing Children Massacred in Minab, Progressive Lawmakers Demand 'Not One More Bomb' Be Dropped on Iran
"Our dollars are advancing the pain of our global neighbors," said Rep. Delia Ramirez. "We here today are saying 'enough.'"
Mar 18, 2026
The lawn outside the US Capitol building was strewn with colorful backpacks and children's shoes on Wednesday afternoon as progressive members of Congress called for an end to President Donald Trump's "illegal" war with Iran.
They were there to memorialize the 168 children, mostly girls aged 7-12, who were killed when the United States bombed an elementary school in Minab on February 28 in the opening salvo of a war that has gone on to claim the lives of more than 2,000 people, including more than 300 children, according to reports from Iranian and Lebanese health authorities.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said each backpack and pair of shoes represented "an Iranian child who should still be with us today... but they were struck down by a Tomahawk missile."
Van Hollen described it as a consequence of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's crusade against what he's derided as "stupid rules of engagement."
"Those rules of engagement are designed to prevent civilian harm," the senator said. "They're designed to prevent a war crime."
The lawmakers described Trump's attack on Iran as a "war of choice" and an act of aggression that violated international law.
"There was no imminent threat" from Iran, said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "There is certainly no plan for this war, and most importantly, there is no authorization from Congress."
Shortly after the war was launched, War Powers Resolutions seeking to rein in Trump's ability to use force without authorization narrowly failed in both the House and the Senate, with a handful of Democrats joining Republicans to kill the measure.
The White House is reportedly preparing to ask Congress for an additional $50 billion in supplemental funding to cover the cost of the Iran war on top of the more than $990 billion Congress has already authorized in last summer's GOP budget bill and the latest funding package.
Most Democrats have taken a firm line against more funding, which would require seven of their votes to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, though some pro-war Democrats have signaled a willingness to fund the war, according to reporting earlier this month.
"Civilians in Iran aren't the only ones who are paying the price," said Rep. Sarah Jacobs (D-Calif.). "Our service members and the American people are too."
She noted that 13 members of the US military have been killed since the war was launched less than two weeks ago, saying, "I fear that this number will grow."
Based on Pentagon estimates provided to Congress earlier this month, the war is projected to have already cost US taxpayers more than $24 billion as of Wednesday.
Jacobs said she would oppose "any defense supplemental package" because "every dollar Congress spends on this war without ever authorizing it tells this president and every future president that they can drag this country into any conflict they want and dare us to defund the troops."
"From Palestine to Iran, our bombs are killing women, they're killing children... our dollars are advancing the pain of our global neighbors," said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) "We here today are saying 'enough.'"
She called for Congress to pass her Block the Bombs Act, which would cut off "offensive" US military funding to Israel, and to pass a war powers resolution limiting Trump's authority to continue striking Iran.
"Not one more dollar for a war with Iran," Ramirez said. "Not one more excuse, not one more bomb."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cracks Are Beginning to Show': Even 79% of Trump Voters Want Quick End to Iran War
“While Trump voters by and large stand behind Trump, they overwhelmingly want him to declare an end to the war."
Mar 18, 2026
War hawks such as Sen. Lindsey Graham are pushing President Donald Trump to keep escalating the war he is waging against Iran, but a new poll of the president's base—those who voted for him in 2024, when he campaigned on "no new wars"—found that doing so would likely anger the steadily shrinking faction of Americans who have thus far continued to support him.
The poll, commissioned by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative, found that 79% of those who voted for Trump in 2024 want a swift end to the US and Israel's war in Iran, which began on February 28 when the president abruptly ended talks regarding Iran's nuclear program and joined Israel in attacking the country.
The survey revealed a political reality at odds with Trump's recent claim that "MAGA loves what I’m doing—every aspect of it."
More than a year after they cast votes for Trump, who campaigned relentlessly on making life more affordable for Americans, the poll found that 55% of people who supported the president are concerned about rising gas prices as a result of the war. The average price of gas has been steadily rising since the US and Israel began the war, leading Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which around a fifth of the global oil supply flows. As of Wednesday the average price in the US was up to $3.842 per gallon.
Fifty-eight percent of Trump voters said they would oppose sending US troops to fight on the ground in Iran, a step the president is reportedly considering taking in order to seize Iran's crucial oil hub on Kharg Island in the Strait of Hormuz.
Just over three-quarters of people who backed Trump in the last election said they supported the president's decision to go to war, but less than a month into the conflict, that number is down eight points from 84% on February 28, according to a Fox News poll at the time.
Quincy Institute executive vice president Trita Parsi noted that even the White House is seemingly searching "for an off-ramp from this widening conflict," in which 13 US troops have been killed and 200 have been wounded. More than 1,300 Iranians have been killed, according to the country's ambassador to the United Nations, as well as more than 900 Lebanese civilians, and at least 15 people in Israel.
"Trump’s base favors a face-saving declaration of victory by Washington that could enable a ceasefire and prevent further economic shocks."
Trump said earlier this week that "maybe we shouldn’t be there at all," and his advisers have reportedly been calling on the president to quickly determine an exit plan to avoid a political backlash.
Meanwhile, said Parsi, "neoconservatives are pressuring President Trump to double down on this war. But this poll shows that Trump’s base favors a face-saving declaration of victory by Washington that could enable a ceasefire and prevent further economic shocks."
In Responsible Statecraft, which is published by the Quincy Institute, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos noted that young MAGA voters, whose support was instrumental in delivering the White House for Trump in 2024, are "driving much of the rising opposition to the war among the president's base."
Only 54% of Trump voters aged 18-29 said they supported the war, while 46% opposed it.
"The cracks are beginning to show in President Donald Trump’s base" over the war, wrote Beaucar Vlahos.
Saagar Enjeti, conservative host of the popular Breaking Points podcast, told Responsible Statecraft that "the Republican base is clearly willing to trust President Trump up to a point but remain weary of any potential escalation."
“As evidenced by this polling the wisest move would be to declare victory and end this immediately," he said.
The poll, which was taken between March 12-14, was released a day after Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced he was resigning from his position because Iran had "posed no imminent threat to our nation" when Trump began the war. The president, said the longtime Trump loyalist, had attacked Iran "due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby."
Kent, whom critics noted has ties to white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, is the most prominent Trump administration official to resign from the White House in protest of the president's policies and actions.
On Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said in her opening statement that the US intelligence community determined that US airstrikes last year "obliterated" Iran's nuclear enrichment program, before claiming that the president alone can determine whether a country poses an "imminent" threat.
While those who voted for the president "by and large stand behind Trump, they overwhelmingly want him to declare an end to the war,” said Parsi on Wednesday. “Trump risks losing significant portions of his base if he escalates the war with ground troops and allows the war to further push up gas prices.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular