Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-271_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 19

16 

ONEOK, INC. v. LEARJET, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

doctrine  of  conflict  pre-emption  should  prove  sufficient  to
address them.  But as we have noted, see Part I–A, supra, 
the parties have not argued conflict pre-emption.  See also, 
e.g.,  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  24  (Solicitor  General  agrees  that  he
has  not  “analyzed  this  [case]  under  a  conflict  preemption 
regime”).  We  consequently  leave  conflict  pre-emption
questions  for  the  lower  courts  to  resolve  in  the  first 
instance. 

D 

We note that petitioners and the Solicitor General have 
argued that we should defer to FERC’s determination that
field pre-emption bars the respondents’ claims.  See Brief 
for  Petitioners  22  (citing  Arlington  v.  FCC,  569  U. S.  ___, 
___–___ (2013) (slip op., at 10–14); Brief for United States 
as Amicus Curiae 32 (same).  But they have not pointed to
a specific FERC determination that state antitrust claims
fall  within  the  field  pre-empted  by  the  Natural  Gas  Act. 
Rather, they point only to the fact that FERC has promul­
gated  detailed  rules  governing  manipulation  of  price 
indices.  Because there is no determination by FERC that 
its  regulation  pre-empts  the  field  into  which  respondents’
state-law  antitrust  suits  fall,  we  need  not  consider  what 
legal  effect  such  a  determination  might  have.    And  we 
conclude that the detailed federal regulations here do not
offset  the  other  considerations  that  weigh  against  a  find­
ing of pre-emption in this context. 

* 

* 

* 

For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit is affirmed. 

It is so ordered.