A federal court on Monday blocked portions of the Federal Communications Commission’s effort to lower the rates that prisoners and their families pay for phone calls.
The decision is a setback to Mignon Clyburn, an FCC commissioner who made prison call reform her top priority during her six months as acting chairwoman last year.
The three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court put portions of the FCC’s prison call order on hold while it considers the lawsuit.
Clyburn has argued that phone companies are gouging prisoners and their families, who have no other option for keeping in touch.
“Too often, families are forced to choose between spending scarce money to stay in touch with loved ones or covering life’s basic necessities,” she said at an emotional meeting last August when the FCC approved the action.
Clyburn argued that cutting inmates off from their families and communities makes them more likely to commit new offenses.
Inmates must pay as much as $17 for a 15-minute phone call, according to the FCC, and many must pay additional fees for every call they place. The FCC order requires companies to justify the rates they charge inmates.
The order also caps rates at 21 cents per minute for prepaid calls and 25 cents per minute for collect calls.
But companies that provide phones services to prisons sued the FCC, claiming the agency overstepped its authority, failed to follow proper administrative procedure, and violated their constitutional rights.
The court blocked the FCC requirement that companies justify their costs, but the overall caps will remain in place.
Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai voted against the prison call order in August, warning that the commission was on weak legal ground.
In a joint statement, Chairman Tom Wheeler, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel and Clyburn said they are pleased that the rate caps will go into effect next month.
“These families have been forced to pay exorbitant rates for far too long,” the Democratic officials said.
“Although we are disappointed that the court granted a partial stay on other aspects of the Inmate Calling Services Order, we look forward to a hearing on the merits soon, and to adopting further reforms quickly.”
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."