> Given that the Supreme Court has previously upheld both of the FCC’s classifications of broadband under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, first as an “information service” and then as a “telecommunications service” (when Wheeler reclassified it to impose net neutrality), there is no way that they will strike down a return to the “information service” classification.
That's inadequately reasoned. The fact that the Supreme Court found an application of the legal definition reasonable on the set of facts presented at one point in time and a different result of applying the same law reasonable on a different set of facts presented at a later time does not mean that a reversion to the older application at a yet later time will necessarily be upheld as consistent with the law based on the facts presented at that time.
> By a legal doctrine known as “Chevron deference”, the courts defer to regulatory agencies in choosing between plausible interpretations of the law, instead of choosing an interpretation themselves.
That's inadequately reasoned. The fact that the Supreme Court found an application of the legal definition reasonable on the set of facts presented at one point in time and a different result of applying the same law reasonable on a different set of facts presented at a later time does not mean that a reversion to the older application at a yet later time will necessarily be upheld as consistent with the law based on the facts presented at that time.
> By a legal doctrine known as “Chevron deference”, the courts defer to regulatory agencies in choosing between plausible interpretations of the law, instead of choosing an interpretation themselves.
Chevron deference is not unlimited deference.