Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-271_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2014 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

ONEOK, INC., ET AL.  v. LEARJET, INC., ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 13–271.  Argued January 12, 2015—Decided April 21, 2015 

Respondents,  a  group  of  manufacturers,  hospitals,  and  other  institu-
tions that buy natural gas directly from interstate pipelines, sued pe-
titioner interstate pipelines, claiming that the pipelines had engaged
in  behavior  that  violated  state  antitrust  laws.    In  particular,  re-
spondents  alleged  that  petitioners  reported  false  information  to  the
natural-gas indices on which respondents’ natural-gas contracts were 
based.  The indices affected not only retail natural-gas prices, but al-
so wholesale natural-gas prices.

After  removing  the  cases  to  federal  court,  the  petitioner  pipelines
sought  summary  judgment  on  the  ground  that  the  Natural  Gas  Act
pre-empted respondents’ state-law claims.  That Act gives the Feder-
al Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to determine
whether  rates  charged  by  natural-gas  companies  or  practices  affect-
ing  such  rates  are  unreasonable.    15  U. S. C.  §717d(a).    But  it  also 
limits FERC’s jurisdiction to the transportation of natural gas in in-
terstate commerce, the sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for 
resale, and natural-gas companies engaged in such transportation or
sale.  §717(b).  The Act leaves regulation of other portions of the in-
dustry—such as retail sales—to the States.  Ibid. 

The  District  Court  granted  petitioners’  motion  for  summary  judg-
ment, reasoning that because petitioners’ challenged practices direct-
ly affected wholesale as well as retail prices, they were pre-empted by
the Act.  The Ninth Circuit reversed.  While acknowledging that the
pipelines’  index  manipulation  increased  wholesale  prices  as  well  as 
retail  prices,  it  held  that  the  state-law  claims  were  not  pre-empted 
because  they  were  aimed  at  obtaining  damages  only  for  excessively 
high retail prices. 

Held: Respondents’ state-law antitrust claims are not within the field of