Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-271_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

The pipelines then moved for summary judgment on the
ground that the Natural Gas Act pre-empted respondents’ 
state-law  antitrust  claims.    The  District  Court  granted 
their  motion.  It  concluded  that  the  pipelines  were  “juris­
dictional sellers,” i.e., “natural gas companies engaged in” 
the “transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce.”
Order in No. 03–cv–1431 (D Nev., July 18, 2011), pp. 4, 11. 
And  it  held  that  respondents’  claims,  which  were  “aimed
at” these sellers’ “alleged practices of false price reporting,
wash trades, and anticompetitive collusive behavior” were 
pre-empted  because  “such  practices,”  not  only  affected 
nonjurisdictional  direct-sale  prices  but  also  “directly  af­
fect[ed]” jurisdictional (i.e., wholesale) rates.  Id., at 36–37. 
It  emphasized  that  the
price-manipulation  of  which  respondents  complained 
affected  not  only  jurisdictional  (i.e.,  wholesale)  sales,  but 
also  nonjurisdictional  (i.e.,  retail)  sales.  The  court  con­
strued  the  Natural  Gas  Act’s  pre-emptive  scope  narrowly
in  light  of  Congress’  intent—manifested  in  §1(b)  of  the
Act—to  preserve  for  the  States  the  authority  to  regulate
nonjurisdictional  sales.    And  it  held  that  the  Act  did  not 
pre-empt state-law claims aimed at obtaining damages for 
excessively  high  retail  natural-gas  prices  stemming  from
interstate  pipelines’  price  manipulation,  even  if  the  ma­
nipulation raised wholesale rates as well.  See In re West-
ern States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, 715 
F. 3d 716, 729–736 (2013).

The  Ninth  Circuit  reversed. 

The  pipelines  sought  certiorari.    They  asked  us  to  re­
solve  confusion  in  the  lower  courts  as  to  whether  the 
Natural  Gas  Act  pre-empts  retail  customers’  state  anti­
trust law challenges to practices that also affect wholesale 
rates.  Compare  id.,  at  729–736,  with  Leggett  v.  Duke 
Energy Corp., 308 S. W. 3d 843 (Tenn. 2010).  We granted
the petition.