However, the Court ruled against the FCC in attempting to block state- and local-level laws that regulated the Internet, enabling states to pass net neutrality legislation.

Common carrier classification under Title II would mean that the FCC, which is granted authority to oversee communication services in the United States, could apply regulations to ISPs, which would include enforcing the principles of net neutrality.

[2] The FCC's authority to classify ISPs in this matter was upheld in the Supreme Court case National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services in 2005, based principle on the Chevron deference for the judiciary to allow federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous Congressional language.

[8] This led the FCC to issue a new Open Internet Order in 2015 that not only continued to enshrine net neutrality principles but also classified ISPs as Title II common carriers.

[13] The proposed changed drew heavy criticism from proponents of net neutrality, with several organized activism events created to draw the public's attention to this.

[14] Analysis of the comments following their release after the public period found a near majority of these opposed to the rule change, even after accounting for potential fraud that had been discovered.

[20] The suit asserted that the FCC had been "arbitrary and capricious" in handling net neutrality, and disregarded "critical record evidence on industry practices and harm to consumers and businesses".

[21] Mozilla and the states argued on points that the FCC, in making the rollback rule, failed to analyze current market conditions correctly, account for public safety, erred in how it classified ISPs as an information service, and asserted that the FCC did not have authority to block states from passing net neutrality laws.

[22] The FCC argued that the former net neutrality rules had harmed broadband investment, and that consumers would be protected by required transparency reports from ISPs.

Several ISPs and trade groups representing them also joined the FCC to argue that there was evidence to suggest that net neutrality rules were required to prevent consumers from being harmed by aggressive throttling and blocking.

"[27] In addition, the Court ordered the FCC to review its rule change on the effect for public safety as related to the California wildfire incident, and the impact on low-income telecommunications services.

All three reflected on the change of the Internet structure since Brand X was decided and pointing out that today, ISPs are better classified as information services than common carriers.

Parties that supported the plaintiffs, including the Computer & Communications Industry Association, other trade groups, and some of the states that joined with them sought an en banc hearing from the full Appeals Court, but this request was denied in February 2020.

[33] Another potential route would be for Congress to pass legislation overriding the FCC's decision to classify ISPs as common carriers or otherwise enforce net neutrality.