The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) net neutrality rules, marking a significant setback for the Biden administration’s efforts to regulate internet service providers (ISPs). The decision, issued Thursday, concludes nearly two decades of contentious debate over whether broadband providers should be treated as utilities, subject to strict oversight.

The three-judge panel cited the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ruling in its decision, stating that the FCC overstepped its authority in reinstating regulations preventing ISPs from throttling or blocking internet content. The ruling effectively reverses the FCC’s 2023 reinstatement of net neutrality, which had been a key tech policy priority for Democrats under President Joe Biden.

The Sixth Circuit’s ruling follows years of regulatory back-and-forth. Net neutrality, first implemented during the Obama administration, was repealed under former President Donald Trump and later reinstated under Biden. The court’s opinion underscored a shift in regulatory authority, with federal agencies now facing stricter judicial scrutiny under the precedent set by Loper Bright, which overturned the Chevron deference doctrine—a longstanding principle granting agencies broad interpretative leeway in enforcing federal statutes.

“The FCC lacks the statutory authority to impose its desired net-neutrality policies,” wrote Judge Richard Allen Griffin, emphasizing that broadband providers cannot be regulated as “common carriers” akin to utilities under the Telecommunications Act of 1934.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, expressed disappointment in the ruling and called on Congress to codify net neutrality protections into law.

“Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an internet that is fast, open, and fair,” Rosenworcel said in a statement. “It is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take up the charge for net neutrality, and put open internet principles in federal law.”

Brendan Carr, Trump’s appointee and likely the next FCC chair, celebrated the court’s decision. “The work to unwind the Biden administration’s regulatory overreach will continue,” Carr said, framing the ruling as a victory for market-driven innovation over government intervention.

Advocates for net neutrality argue the rules are essential to prevent ISPs from abusing their market power, while critics view them as an unnecessary regulatory burden that stifles innovation. Grant Spellmeyer, CEO of the cable trade group ACA Connects, lauded the ruling, describing it as a “major victory” against government overreach.

The decision has implications for a range of stakeholders, including the adult entertainment industry, which relies on equitable internet access to deliver content. Advocacy groups such as the Free Speech Coalition have long supported net neutrality, arguing that without it, ISPs could prioritize or block certain content based on financial or ideological interests.

Tech industry groups, including Engine Advocacy and INCOMPAS, also voiced concern. In an amicus brief, they argued that without net neutrality, small businesses and startups could face significant challenges in competing with established players like Netflix and Amazon.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision adds momentum to a broader push to curtail federal regulatory authority. By invoking Loper Bright, the court has set a precedent likely to influence other challenges to agency regulations.

While the FCC retains authority over traditional telephone networks, its power over broadband services is now significantly diminished. The court’s decision also underscores growing concerns about cybersecurity, with critics warning that weaker FCC oversight could leave broadband networks more vulnerable to foreign hacking and other national security threats.

Net neutrality’s future now rests with Congress, but legislative action appears unlikely in the near term. With Republicans set to control both houses of Congress and a second Trump administration on the horizon, the prospect of reinstating net neutrality seems slim.

“This decision effectively puts to bed an issue that has consumed the tech and telecom sectors for two decades,” said Marc Martin, a former FCC official. “Unless there’s a dramatic shift in public sentiment or significant abuses by ISPs, this chapter of regulatory history may be closed.”

For now, state-level net neutrality laws in places like California and Washington remain in effect, offering some protections to consumers. However, the federal landscape has shifted decisively against broad regulatory oversight, leaving the principle of an open internet at the mercy of market forces.