Opinion ID: 2623481
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: United States Supreme Court's review of Iowa I and state superior court's response

Text: Prior to the superior court decision, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit's Iowa I ruling, concluding that the FCC had jurisdiction to promulgate rules ... regarding rural exemptions.... [24] The Court remanded the case to the Eighth Circuit to consider the substantive challenges to the regulation. [25] The superior court had the benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in deciding GCI's appeal from APUC. The superior court concluded that APUC erred in allocating the burden of proof to GCI and remanded for another agency hearing, noting that fairness concerns prescribe the conclusion that the party in control of the evidence, in this case [ACS], bears the burden of proving that evidence. After the superior court remanded the case to APUC, APUC held a second hearing in June 1999, with ACS shouldering the burden of proof. APUC issued its decision terminating the rural exemptions on June 30, 1999. In its brief order, APUC determined that ACS would not face an undue economic burden, were it required to interconnect with GCI. Additionally, APUC noted that GCI's request for interconnection was technically feasible. Thus, APUC turned to consider whether interconnection would be consistent with the goals of universal service. APUC concluded that federal and state universal service funds would adequately preserve and advance universal service. APUC emphasized the importance of competition in its order: Without removal of [ACS's] rural exemption, it is questionable whether the rural portions of Alaska that are the subject of GCI's petition will ever have competitive local exchange service. Therefore, the Commission has determined that it is appropriate to remove that roadblock and proceed down the path to competition. The RCA reconsidered APUC's decision and affirmed on October 11, 1999. ACS appealed to the superior court.