Just over a year ago, the Supreme Court reversed a prior Fifth Circuit ruling in a related case and found an “intelligible principle” in Section 254. Ruppalt focused on two high-cost programs that support gigabit-speed broadband networks: Connect America Fund Phase II and the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. Those networks, she said, are not subscribed to by a majority of residential customers and therefore fall outside the statute as the Supreme Court interpreted it. Defending provisions that allow additional services for schools, libraries and rural health care providers, Carr pointed to the requirement that spending be “economically reasonable.” Jason Neal, arguing for intervenors including the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, emphasized the importance of the rural broadband subsidies now on the chopping block.