Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-271_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

10 

ONEOK, INC. v. LEARJET, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

II 

Petitioners, supported  by the United States, argue that 
their  customers’  state  antitrust  lawsuits  are  within  the 
field  that  the  Natural  Gas  Act  pre-empts.    See  Brief  for 
Petitioners  18  (citing  Schneidewind,  485  U. S.,  at  305); 
Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13 (same).  They
point  out  that  respondents’  antitrust  claims  target  anti­
competitive  activities  that  affected  wholesale  (as  well  as 
retail)  rates.  See  Brief  for  Petitioners  2.    They  add  that
the  Natural  Gas  Act  expressly  grants  FERC  authority  to
keep wholesale rates at reasonable levels.  See ibid. (citing
15 U. S. C. §§717(b), 717d(a)).  In exercising this authority,
FERC  has  prohibited  the  very  kind  of  anticompetitive
conduct  that  the  state  actions  attack.    See  Part  I–B–3, 
supra.    And,  petitioners  contend,  letting  these  actions 
proceed will permit state antitrust courts to reach conclu­
sions about that conduct that differ from those that FERC 
might  reach  or  has  already  reached.    Accordingly,  peti­
tioners  argue,  respondents’  state-law  antitrust  suits  fall 
within the pre-empted field. 

A 
Petitioners’  arguments  are  forceful,  but  we  cannot  ac­
cept their conclusion.  As we have repeatedly stressed, the
Natural  Gas  Act  “was  drawn  with  meticulous  regard  for
the  continued  exercise  of  state  power,  not  to  handicap  or
dilute it in any way.”  Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. 
Public  Serv.  Comm’n  of  Ind.,  332  U. S.  507,  517–518 
(1947);  see  also  Northwest  Central,  489  U. S.,  at  511  (the
“legislative  history  of  the  [Act]  is  replete  with  assurances 
that  the  Act  ‘takes  nothing  from  the  State  [regulatory] 
commissions’ ”  (quoting  81  Cong.  Rec.  6721  (1937))).    Ac­
cordingly,  where  (as  here)  a  state  law  can  be  applied  to
nonjurisdictional  as  well  as  jurisdictional  sales,  we  must 
proceed  cautiously,  finding  pre-emption  only  where  de­
tailed examination convinces us that a matter falls within