United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1267

___________________________

Qwest Corporation

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; David Boyd, in his official capacity as

Chairman of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; J. Dennis O’Brien, in his

official capacity as a member of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;

Thomas Pugh, in his official capacity as a member of the Minnesota Public

Utilities Commission; Phyllis Reha, in her official capacity as a member of the

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; Betsy Wergin, in her official capacity as a

member of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: November 20, 2013

Filed: November 25, 2013

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MELLOY and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________
RILEY, Chief Judge.

Qwest Corporation appeals from the order and judgment the district court

entered on January 7, 2013, on remand from our decision in Qwest Corp. v. Minnesota

Public Utilities Commission, 684 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 2012). In Qwest, we held that the

district court erred in upholding an April 23, 2010, order from the Minnesota Public

Utilities Commission (commission). Id. at 722, 732. The commission’s order had

asserted it had authority under state law to regulate rates for certain

telecommunication network elements that Qwest provided to its competitors

voluntarily or as required by 47 U.S.C. § 271—a key part of the Telecommunications

Act of 1996 (Act), Pub. L. No. 101–104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amended in

scattered sections of Title 47 of the United States Code). Id. at 724-25, 732. 

We concluded the commission’s order was “preempted by the Act and the

[Federal Communications Commission]’s implementing regulations and rulings.” Id.

at 732. “We reverse[d] the judgment of the district court, and remand[ed] to the

district court to enter relief and judgment consistent with th[e] opinion.” Id.

On remand, the district court determined that in Qwest we “held that the

[c]ommission is preempted from regulating the rates of elements required by [§] 271,

and did not reverse with regard to elements not required by [§] 271 but provided

voluntarily.” Concluding the commission’s order “should not be vacated in its

entirety,” the district court ordered that the commission’s order was only “preempted

insofar as it regulates rates for elements required under [§] 271.” That conclusion was

in error. 

To clarify, we held in Qwest that the commission’s order was preempted in its

entirety, and we reversed the district court’s original judgment with respect to both the

elements Qwest provides pursuant to § 271 and those it provides voluntarily. Id. at

722, 732. We again reverse the judgment of the district court and remand to the

-2-
district court with instructions to vacate the whole April 23, 2010 order of the

commission as preempted by federal law and to enjoin the commission from enforcing

the order in its entirety. 

______________________________

-3-