*The following story by Broadband Breakfast Reporter Jericho Casper was originally published here.

Trump administration attorneys told a federal judge that the Digital Equity Act's competitive grant program could likely continue if a challenged provision is struck down.

During a hearing before U.S. District Judge John Bates, Commerce Department attorney Patrick Butler argued that a statutory provision identifying certain racial and ethnic groups as “covered populations” could be severed from the law if found unconstitutional.

(Should that happen, it would allow) the rest of the program to move forward without considering race. 

The clarification came during a motion hearing in a suit brought by the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA), which challenged the administration's decision to halt the Digital Equity Act program after President Donald Trump characterized it as unconstitutional.

The hearing, held in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 11, was made public Monday.

During the hearing, Bates repeatedly questioned both sides about whether the constitutional issue could be resolved now, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, and whether any part of the case would remain if the challenged provision were severed and the grant program continued.

Justice Department and Commerce Department attorneys argued that the disputed provision could be removed while leaving the rest of the program intact.

“It's our position that the racial classification is severable,”  Butler told the court. “If you decide that the racial classification is unconstitutional ... and then you sever it, we would obviously apply the grant program without considering race.”

In yet another bruising blow in the fight to ensure equitable access to high-speed Internet service, an appeals court struck down federal rules this week that aimed to combat digital redlining.

The ruling came despite a mandate from the bipartisan infrastructure law passed during the Biden administration that directed the FCC to develop “rules to facilitate equal access to broadband internet access service” that would prevent “digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin.”

Not adopted until 2023 after a lengthy rulemaking process and public comment period, when the FCC published its final digital discrimination rules it gave the agency the authority to penalize Internet Service Providers (ISPs) whose policies resulted in “disparate impact,” even if the agency couldn’t prove deliberate discriminatory intent.

Among the real-world “disparate impact” examples advocates presented to the FCC were instances such as when residents of Hope Village, a mostly Black neighborhood in Detroit, experienced a 45-day Internet outage during the height of the pandemic lockdowns – as well as studies that found many large providers charge poor, minority neighborhoods significantly more money for slower broadband access than their more affluent, less diverse counterparts.

*The following story by Broadband Breakfast Reporter Kelcie Lee was originally published here.

The lawsuit over the Trump administration’s suspension of grants from the $2.75 billion program to close the digital divide may come to a pause. 

The National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) filed a motion Wednesday to put its lawsuit suing President Donald Trump on hold, because there is a similar case further along that would control the outcome. 

NDIA was a key player in the Digital Equity Act (DEA), having been one of 65 recommended awardees that were blindsided after having spent two years building plans approved by the federal government. 

The DEA was a Biden-era program from the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA) that worked to ensure Americans could access, afford and fully participate in the increasingly digital society. 

In May 2025, Trump halted $1.25 billion in DEA competitive grants, explaining that the act was unconstitutional, racist and illegal.

When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it sought to foster innovation and competition in telecommunications markets, expand the definition of universal service, and modernize regulatory structures for the digital age. Three decades later, architects of the ‘96 Act say it achieved many of those goals, but numerous legal challenges following its passage reshaped how key provisions were implemented.

“Litigation shaped so much of what the Act eventually became,” said Mignon Clyburn, a former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, speaking Thursday among a panel of former FCC regulators, legal counsel, and policy advisors who helped shape and defend the landmark telecom law.

Gathered for an event organized by the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society marking the law’s 30th anniversary, the event reflected on both the spirit and letter of the landmark legislation which has shaped much of the modern Internet in the United States. The first major overhaul of telecommunications law in more than 60 years, the ‘96 Act required the FCC to conduct more than 80 separate rulemakings addressing everything from appropriate pricing, to interconnection rules and the unbundling of incumbent telephone networks.

The Trump administration's illegal “termination” of the 2021 Digital Equity Act continues to have devastating real world impacts on everything from affordable broadband access to protecting Americans from skyrocketing online scams.

The $2.75 billion Digital Equity Act was passed by Congress as part of the 2021 infrastructure law. It mandated the creation of three different major grant programs intended to shore up equitable, widespread access to affordable Internet, while providing the tools and digital literacy education needed to help neglected U.S. communities get online.

But last May the Trump administration unceremoniously demolished the Act, froze all program funding, and left countless states, programs and organizations – many on the cusp of major new efforts – high and dry.

At the time, President Trump and GOP leaders like Sen. Ted Cruz disingenuously attacked the Act’s programs as “racist” and "unconstitutional,” – part of a broader effort to dismantle programs deemed as “DEI,” even in instances where the programs had little to nothing to do with race or gender. Many of the “covered populations” covered by the bill included rural residents, veterans, and elderly Americans from all walks of life.

Funding Freeze Puts Most Vulnerable Americans at Risk

The sudden "termination" of the popular law resulted in dozens of states having to abruptly cancel major broadband expansion plans. But the freeze has also been a massive problem for state programs that were taking aim at a U.S. online fraud epidemic proving particularly harmful to the U.S. elderly and marginalized communities.