Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-271_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 31

10 

ONEOK, INC. v. LEARJET, INC. 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

juries.  The  Court’s  reassurance  that  pipelines  may  still 
invoke  conflict  preemption,  see  ante,  at  15–16,  provides
little  comfort  on  this  front.  Conflict  preemption  will  re-
solve only discrepancies between state and federal regula-
tions,  not  the  discrepancies  among  differing  state  regula-
tions to which today’s opinion subjects the industry. 

* 

* 

* 
“The  Natural  Gas  Act  was  designed  .  .  .  to  produce  a
harmonious and comprehensive regulation of the industry. 
Neither state nor federal regulatory body was to encroach 
upon  the  jurisdiction  of  the  other.”  FPC  v.  Panhandle 
Eastern Pipe Line Co., 337 U. S. 498, 513 (1949) (footnote 
omitted).  Today, however, the Court allows the States  to 
encroach.  Worse  still,  it  leaves  pipelines  guessing  about
when  States  will  be  allowed  to  encroach  again.  May
States  aim  at  retail  rates  under  laws  that  share  none  of 
the  features  of  antitrust  law  advertised  today?  Under 
laws that share only some of those features?   May  States 
apply  their  antitrust  laws  to  pipelines  without  aiming  at 
retail rates?  But that is just the start.  Who knows what 
other  “considerations  that  weigh  against  a  finding  of  pre-
emption”  remain  to  be  unearthed  in  future  cases?    The 
Court’s  all-things-considered  test  does  not  make  for  a 
stable  background  against  which  to  carry  on  the  natural 
gas trade.

I would stand by the more principled and more workable
line  traced  by  our  precedents.  The  Commission  may 
regulate  the  practices  alleged  in  this  case;  the  States
therefore may not.  I respectfully dissent.