Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 274.0

524US1

Unit: $U84

[09-06-00 20:39:07] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 214 (1998)

229

Rehnquist, C. J., concurring

against AT&T amount to no more than an intentional refusal
to provide services to respondent in an amount or manner
contrary to the ﬁled tariff.

I write separately to note that this ﬁnding is necessary to
the conclusion that respondent’s state-law tort claim may not
proceed. As the majority correctly states, the ﬁled rate
doctrine exists to protect the “antidiscriminatory policy
which lies at ‘the heart of the common-carrier section of the
Communications Act.’ ” Ante, at 223. Central to that anti-
discriminatory policy is the notion that all purchasers of
services covered by the tariff will pay the same rate. The
ﬁled rate doctrine furthers this policy by disallowing suits
brought to enforce agreements to provide services on terms
different from those listed in the tariff. This ensures that
the tariff governs the terms by which the common carrier
provides those services to its customers.

It is crucial to note, however, that this is all the tariff
governs.
In order for the ﬁled rate doctrine to serve its
purpose, therefore, it need pre-empt only those suits that
seek to alter the terms and conditions provided for in the
tariff. This is how the doctrine has been applied in the past.
In Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155 (1912), for
example, respondent entered into a contract with petitioner
to ship horses from Springﬁeld, Illinois, to New York City
via a special fast train. The tariff that the petitioner had
ﬁled “did not provide for an expedited service, nor for trans-
portation by any particular train.”
Id., at 163. The Court
ruled that respondent’s suit to enforce the special arrange-
ment could not proceed:

“An advantage accorded by special agreement which af-
fects the value of the service to the shipper and its cost
to the carrier should be published in the tariffs, and for
a breach of such a contract, relief will be denied, because
its allowance without such publication is a violation of
It is also illegal because it is an undue advan-
the act.