In a significant blow to efforts to revive federal oversight of internet service providers, net neutrality advocates have decided against appealing a key court loss to the U.S. Supreme Court, citing deep mistrust in the current justices’ approach to regulatory issues. This move effectively ends, at least for now, a long-running battle to reinstate rules that would prevent broadband companies from throttling or blocking online content.

The decision stems from a January 2025 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which unanimously struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2024 net neutrality order. That order, spearheaded by then-Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, reclassified broadband as a Title II telecommunications service, granting the agency authority to enforce open-internet protections.

Advocates’ Strategic Retreat

Groups like Free Press and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which had intervened in the case, faced an August 8, 2025, deadline to file a petition for certiorari. Instead, they chose to stand down, arguing that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions demonstrate “hostility toward sound legal reasoning,” as detailed in a report from Ars Technica. This sentiment echoes broader concerns among public interest organizations about the court’s conservative majority, particularly after rulings like Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which curtailed agency deference.

Earlier attempts to challenge the Sixth Circuit’s decision included a February 2025 petition for rehearing en banc, filed by Free Press and others, as noted on the organization’s own policy library page. That effort failed, leaving the Supreme Court as the last resort—a path advocates now deem futile.

Historical Context and FCC Shifts

Net neutrality has been a partisan flashpoint for over a decade. The rules were first adopted under the Obama administration in 2015, only to be repealed by the Trump-era FCC in 2017. The Biden administration’s revival in 2024 aimed to restore them, but the Sixth Circuit’s invocation of the major questions doctrine—questioning the FCC’s authority without explicit congressional approval—proved decisive.

Compounding the setback, the incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr, a vocal opponent, has already moved to purge remnants of the rules from the agency’s books, according to coverage in The Verge. This administrative cleanup underscores a shifting regulatory environment under the new administration, where broadband providers like Comcast and Verizon celebrate the outcome as a victory for innovation without government interference.

Industry Implications and Future Battles

For telecom insiders, this non-appeal signals a potential pivot to state-level regulations or legislative pushes, though prospects in a divided Congress remain dim. Public interest groups, as reported by Broadband Breakfast, had secured a 60-day extension from Justice Brett Kavanaugh in June 2025 to prepare their case, yet ultimately concluded the political climate at the high court was too adverse.

Critics argue this retreat could embolden ISPs to prioritize paid traffic, potentially harming startups and consumers. As one advocate told Ars Technica, “We’re not going to waste resources on a court that’s shown little regard for administrative expertise.” While the fight may shift venues, the absence of federal net neutrality leaves a void in protecting an open internet, with long-term effects on competition and access likely to unfold in the coming years.

Echoes from Social Media and Broader Sentiment

Sentiment on platforms like X reflects a polarized divide, with some users hailing the court ruling as a defeat of “government overreach,” while others decry it as a corporate win. Reports from Broadband Breakfast highlight how advocates relied on nonprofit interveners after the FCC itself declined to appeal, underscoring the fragmented nature of the pro-net neutrality coalition.

Looking ahead, industry watchers anticipate that without Supreme Court intervention, net neutrality’s fate may hinge on future elections or technological shifts, such as the rise of 5G and edge computing, which could redefine broadband oversight. For now, the advocates’ decision marks a pragmatic, if reluctant, concession in a protracted regulatory saga.