The Supreme Court has struck down a challenge to the Universal Service Fund (USF), a program designed to improve broadband access in schools and rural areas.

The US has long suffered a “digital divide,” a huge disparity in internet and broadband access when comparing cities and metropolitan areas to rural regions. The FCC has used the USF to help close that gap. For example, under the leadership of then-Chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC looked to provide $9 billion to carriers to help them use 5G to tackle the divide, using the USF.

“5G has the potential to bring many benefits to American consumers and businesses, including wireless networks that are more responsive, more secure, and up to 100 times faster than today’s 4G LTE networks,” Pai said at the time. “We want to make sure that rural Americans enjoy these benefits, just as residents of large urban areas will. In order to do that, the Universal Service Fund must be forward-looking and support the networks of tomorrow.”

The USF is designed to help The FCC turned over the administration of the program to nonprofit Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), but Consumers’ Research challenged the legality of the program and its administration, saying it was unconstitutional.

In its decision, SCOTUS first detailed the role of the FCC in providing universal access to necessary services.

The Communications Act of 1934 established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) and instructed it to make available to “all the people of the United States,” reliable communications services “at reasonable charges.” 47 U. S. C. §151. That objective is today known as “universal service.” The universal-service project arose from the concern that pure market mechanisms would leave some population segments—such as the poor and those in rural areas—without access to needed communications services. Under the 1934 Act, the FCC pursued universal service primarily through implicit subsidies, using its rate-regulation authority to lower costs for some consumers at the expense of others.

After breaking down Consumers’ Research’s case point-by-point, showing how precedent favors the FCC and the USAC, SCOTUS delivered its decision.

When Congress amended the Communications Act in 1996, it provided the Commission with clear guidance on how to promote universal service using carrier contributions. Congress laid out the “general policy” to be achieved, the “principle[s]” and standards the FCC must use in pursuing that policy, and the “boundaries” the FCC may not cross. J. W. Hampton, 276 U. S., at 409; American Power & Light, 329 U. S., at 105. Our precedents do not require more. Nor do they prevent the Commission, in carrying out Congress’s policy, from obtaining the Administrator’s assistance in projecting revenues and expenses, so that carriers pay the needed amount. For nearly three decades, the work of Congress and the Commission in establishing universalservice programs has led to a more fully connected country. And it has done so while leaving fully intact the separation of powers integral to our Constitution.

We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a big win for rural communities, schools, libraries, hospitals, and other underserved communities and entities, and should go a long way toward helping the US close the digital divide.