U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

[xocet]

33. Here is the opinion....

To answer your question, they were appointed by Clinton, Clinton and Reagan, respectively - I too wondered:

From page 3 of the opinion

...

Before: ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges, and
SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge

...

www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

Here are links to the judicial biographies of these judges:

Rogers, Judith Ann Wilson

Born 1939 in New York, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by William J. Clinton on November 17, 1993, to a seat vacated by Clarence Thomas. Confirmed by the Senate on March 10, 1994, and received commission on March 11, 1994.

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2041&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

Tatel, David S.

Born 1942 in Washington, DC

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by William J. Clinton on June 20, 1994, to a seat vacated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Confirmed by the Senate on October 6, 1994, and received commission on October 7, 1994.

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2341&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

Silberman, Laurence Hirsch

Born 1935 in York, PA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on September 11, 1985, to a new seat authorized by 98 Stat. 333. Confirmed by the Senate on October 25, 1985, and received commission on October 28, 1985. Assumed senior status on November 1, 2000.

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2189&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

I am not qualified to analyze the opinion, but these seem to be the relevant parts:

On page 63 of the opinion:

IV.

For the forgoing reasons, although we reject Verizon’s challenge to the Open Internet Order’s disclosure rules, we vacate both the anti-discrimination and the anti-blocking rules. See Northern Air Cargo v. U.S. Postal Service, 674 F.3d 852, 860–61 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (appropriateness of vacatur dependent on whether “(1) the agency’s decision is so deficient as to raise serious doubts whether the agency can adequately justify its decision at all; and (2) vacatur would be seriously disruptive or costly”); Comcast, 600 F.3d at 661 (vacating the Comcast Order). We remand the case to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

On page 64 of the opinion:

SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I am in general agreement with the majority’s conclusion that the Open Internet Order impermissibly subjects broadband providers to treatment as common carriers, but I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that § 706 otherwise provides the FCC with affirmative statutory authority to promulgate these rules. I also think the Commission’s reasoning violates the Administrative Procedure Act. These differences are important since the majority opinion suggests possible regulatory modifications that might circumvent the prohibition against common carrier treatment.

www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf