Neither is overturning one as unconstitutional that Congress explicitly created and the President signed into law, especially on the sole basis of "well we're not certain Congress still wants it, even though they could get rid of it easily if they cared".
I believe the argument is that Congress is not constitutionally allowed to delegate determination of the amount of that tax because the first words in the US Constitution are "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" and specifying the amount of that tax is clearly "legislation"? The executive branch is granted little or no legislative power.
From a practical standpoint at least some voters know who their US Senators and US Representative are and a few of those will actually look up how they voted on a tax hike or cut and include that information into their decision making process on who to vote for every two to six years. Very few voters know who the unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies are, those bureaucrats change without the direct consent of voters, and they never stand for election.
The linked article says "Liberal and conservative justices alike said they were concerned about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund that has benefited tens of millions of Americans". It's fine that the court is "concerned" about this, however it is not something the court should consider in the slightest in their decision this case - those are the effects of policy decisions which should be left to elected legislators in a properly functioning democracy. If the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, Congress is free to go do their job and pass legislation that specifies the amount of the tax just as they do with Federal income tax (showing they have the _ability_ to do so).
> I believe the argument is that Congress is not constitutionally allowed to delegate determination of the amount of that tax because the first words in the US Constitution are "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" and specifying the amount of that tax is clearly "legislation"?
The powers "herein granted" include "To provide and maintain a Navy", but that doesn't mean they can't delegate aspects of running the Navy to the Executive. We don't have to pass a new law every time the Navy sails a ship to Australia.
That's because you changed what's actually happening to something way bigger, so then you can immediately say it's not minutiae.
This isn't taxes, this is one very specific and small tax. And this isn't levied by the FCC, it's levied by Congress. The FCC just gets to say what percentage of this specific tax is applicable.
So the FCC gets the power to change what percentage of phone bills should go towards universal telephony access. Put this way, you know, the thing that's actually happening, it does seem like minutiae.
I doubt Congress has any idea what percentage of phone bills should go towards universal access because they're not telecommunications experts. They don't know how hard, or easy, it may be to run rural lines. They don't know what lines are still needed. They don't know where they're needed. In fact, they don't even know what phone bills should cost!