Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-271_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 22

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

1 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 13–271 
_________________ 

ONEOK, INC., ET AL. PETITIONERS v.

 LEARJET, INC., ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 

[April 21, 2015] 

JUSTICE  SCALIA,  with  whom  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE  joins,

dissenting. 

The Natural Gas Act divides responsibility over trade in 
natural gas between federal and state regulators.  The Act 
and  our  cases  interpreting  it  draw  a  firm  line  between
national and local authority over this trade:  If the Federal 
Government  may  regulate  a  subject,  the  States  may  not.
Today  the  Court  smudges  this  line.    It  holds  that  States 
may use their antitrust laws to regulate practices already 
regulated  by  the  Federal  Energy  Regulatory  Commission 
whenever  “other  considerations  . . .  weigh  against  a  find-
ing of pre-emption.”  Ante, at 16.  The Court’s make-it-up-
as-you-go-along  approach  to  preemption  has  no  basis  in
the Act, contradicts our cases, and will prove unworkable 
in practice. 

I 
Trade in natural gas consists of three parts.  A drilling
company  collects  gas  from  the  earth;  a  pipeline  company
then  carries  the  gas  to  its  destination  and  sells  it  at
wholesale  to  a  local  distributor;  and  the  local  distributor 
sells  the  gas  at  retail  to  industries  and  households.    See 
ante,  at  3.   The  Natural  Gas  Act  empowers  the  Commis-
sion  to  regulate  the  middle  of  this  three-leg  journey—
interstate transportation and wholesale sales.  15 U. S. C.