Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-271_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

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

3 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

it 

See,  e.g.,  Northern  Natural  Gas  Co.  v.  State  Corporation 
Comm’n of Kan., 372 U. S. 84, 89 (1963) (state regulation 
of  pipelines’  gas  purchases  preempted  because  it  “in-
vade[s]  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  which  the  Natural  Gas 
Act has conferred upon the [Commission]”); Exxon Corp. v. 
Eagerton, 462 U. S. 176, 185 (1983) (state law prohibiting 
producers  from  passing  on  production  taxes  preempted 
because 
“trespasse[s]  upon  FERC’s  authority”); 
Schneidewind  v.  ANR  Pipeline  Co.,  485  U. S.  293,  309 
(1988) (state securities regulation directly affecting whole-
sale  rates  and  gas  transportation  facilities  preempted 
because  it  regulates  “matters  that  Congress  intended 
FERC  to  regulate”).    The  test  for  preemption  in  this  set-
ting, the Court has confirmed, “ ‘is whether the matter on
which  the  State  asserts  the  right  to  act  is  in  any  way
regulated by the Federal Act.’ ”  Id., at 310, n. 13. 
  Straightforward  application  of  these  precedents  would 
make  short  work  of  the  case  at  hand.  The  Natural  Gas 
Act empowers the Commission to regulate “practice[s] . . . 
affecting  [wholesale]  rate[s].”  §717d.  Nothing  in  the  Act 
suggests  that  the  States  share  power  to  regulate  these 
practices.  The  Commission  has  reasonably  determined 
that this power allows it to regulate the behavior involved 
in this case, pipelines’ use of sham trades and false reports 
to  manipulate  gas  price  indices.    Because  the  Commis-
sion’s  exclusive  authority  extends  to  the  conduct  chal-
lenged  here,  state  antitrust  regulation  of  that  conduct  is 
preempted. 

II 
The  Court  agrees  that  the  Commission  may  regulate
index manipulation, but upholds state antitrust regulation
of this practice anyway on account of “other considerations 
that  weigh  against  a  finding  of  pre-emption  in  this  con-
text.”  Ante,  at  16.  That  is  an  unprecedented  decision.
The  Court  does  not  identify  a  single  case—not  one—in