Document: 541 U.S. 125 NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURIv.MISSOURI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE ET AL. No. 02-1238. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 12, 2004. Decided March 24, 2004.* After Missouri enacted a statute forbidding its "political subdivision[s to] provide or offer for sale ... telecommunications service facility," the municipal respondents, including municipally owned utilities, petitioned Federal Communications Commission (FCC) an order declaring unlawful under 47 U. S. C. § 253, which authorizes preemption state and local laws regulations "that prohibit have effect prohibiting ability any entity" to services. Relying on earlier resolving challenge comparable Texas law affirming opinion District Columbia Circuit, FCC refused declare preempted, concluding that "any in 253(a) does not include political subdivisions, but applies only independent entities subject regulation. The also adverted principle Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 452, Congress needs be clear before it constrains traditional authority government. Eighth Circuit panel unanimously reversed, explaining 253(a)'s word "entity," especially when modified by "any," manifested sufficiently congressional attention governmental get past Gregory. Held: class contemplated 253 State's own so as affect power States localities restrict their (or inferiors') delivery Pp. 131-141. (a) Two considerations fall short supporting respondents. First, they argue fencing out business flouts public interest promoting competition. It follow, however, preempting barriers entry into market would effective way draw municipalities business, event issue here turn merits Second, concentrating undefined statutory phrase produce persuasive answer here. While "entity" can either private, there is no convention omitting modifiers "public private" both are meant covered. Nor coverage reliably signaled speaking "any" entity; mean different things depending upon setting. To at Congress's understanding requires broader frame reference, this litigation helps ask how could envisioned clause actually working if applied respondents' urging. See, e. g., New Jersey Realty Title Ins. Co. Division Tax Appeals N. J., 338 665, 673. strange indeterminate results using federal free from limitations key used with limited reference private entity. 131-133. (b) position holds sufficient promise futility uncertainty keep accepting it. 133-141. (1) In familiar instances regulatory Supremacy Clause, measure regulation economic conduct party simply leaves do anything chooses consistent prevailing law. Lorillard Tobacco Reilly, 533 525, 540-553. But such simple result follow unshackle governments entrepreneurial limitations. Such government's capacity enter turns straightforward below national level (including outright bans), potential will support market. Preempting ban government utilities accomplish much point some authorizing run utility first place. And make difference anyone regulator were left control over funding needed operation declined pay other words, regulates itself subdivision through acts) distinction between entity regulated. Legal limits what subdivisions) may often indistinguishable choices express wishes resources command. Thus, self-regulation inferiors) work differently players highly unlikely intended set off uncertain adventures. 133-134. (2) Several hypothetical examples illustrate implausibility reading preempt self-regulation. Whether entity's "ability" means denying act place, whether limiting cutting back preexisting go (under law), hypotheticals demonstrate like normal preemptive unit. nothing, treat formal structures function, hold consistency. That start down road absence clearer signal than "ability farfetched. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 310 534, 543. 134-138. (3) practical implication dissent's forbid withdraw municipalities' expressly withdrawals competitively neutral sense being couched general terms target telecommunications, read words "or has prohibiting." Those willingness unwanted effect, even advertise prohibitory agenda faces. therefore disregards 253's plain language entails policy consequence possibly intended. 138-140. (c) A complementary bring same conclusion assumption might operate straightforwardly choice. Section hardly forthright enough pass Gregory: one reading, neither structure nor legislative history points unequivocally commitment providers par firms. want "unmistakably clear" statement S., 460, fatal reading. 140-141. 299 F. 3d 949, reversed. SOUTER, delivered Court, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, filed concurring judgment, THOMAS, joined, post, p. 141. STEVENS, dissenting opinion, 142. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Ronald Molteni, Assistant Attorney General Missouri, argued cause petitioner With him briefs Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, General, pro se, James R. Layton, State Solicitor. A. Feldman petitioners 02-1386. Solicitor Olson, Pate, Deputy Hungar, Catherine G. O'Sullivan, Andrea Limmer, John Rogovin, Richard K. Welch. Michael Kellogg, Geoffrey M. Klineberg, Sean Lev Southwestern Bell Telephone, L. P., 02-1405. David Strauss Municipal League et al., respondents all cases. brief Baller B. Geltman.† JUSTICE SOUTER Court. 1 101(a) Telecommunications Act 1996, 110 Stat. 70, effectively "prohibiting question includes We not. 2 * 1997, Assembly codified 392.410(7) Revised Statutes: 3 "No shall sale, provider, facility certificate required pursuant section."1 4 On July 8, 1998, municipalities, organizations, (FCC Commission) preempted 253: 5 regulation, legal requirement, interstate intrastate service." 253(a). 6 "If, after notice opportunity comment, determines permitted imposed statute, requirement violates subsection section, enforcement extent necessary correct violation inconsistency." 253(d). 7 re League, 16 Rcd. 1157 (2001), relying law, Public Utility Comm'n Texas, 13 3460 (1997), well Abilene FCC, 164 49 (1999). agency concluded "the term `any entity' section . was subdivisions state, rather appears restrictions apply regulation."2 Rcd., 1162. Like Abilene, 452 (1991), 1169. time rejected preemption, denounced behind id., 1162-1163, Commission's carried two appended statements (one Chairman William E. Kennard Commissioner Gloria Tristani, 1172, Susan Ness, 1173) barring providing substantially disserved Act. 8 appealed where reversed disposition, 949 (2002), explanation plainvanilla 3d, 953-955. decision put odds Circuit's we granted certiorari resolve conflict. 539 941 (2003). now reverse. II 9 At outset, aside appear hopes generous conception 253. policy, least respectable position, interest. There are, course, arguments side, against participation: regulated level, provider's weapon competitors, see, Brief Petitioner 02-1405 pp. 17-18; (if bad) fail leave taxpayers bills. Still, Tristani minced saying participation "further goal 1996 benefits competition Americans, particularly those who live small rural communities municipally-owned great competitive potential." 1172. Ness said same, number amicus advantages letting furnish services, drawing role operators extending electric lines early last century. City al. Amici Curiae 14-18; Consumer Federation America Amicus 7. As try explain, infra, 133-138, 10 second consideration fails posed portion text received emphasis. trained analysis entity," weight placed modifier "any." concentration writing page compare, 42 9604(k)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. I) (defining "eligible body agent) 26 269B(c)(1) corporation, partnership, trust, association, estate, form carrying activity"), 2000d-7(a)(2) (exposing remedies antidiscrimination suits available "against State"). Compare, Gonzales, 520 1, (1997) (suggesting expansive meaning "`any imprisonment'" sentences), Raygor Regents Univ. Minn., 534 533, 542-546 (2002) (implying narrow interpretation claim asserted'" exclude certain claims dismissed Eleventh Amendment grounds). understanding, 673 (1950) (enquiring effect" tax bonds). think cast net. III 11 precinct person corporation If say, preempts cigarette advertising, seller advertising State, without matter. 540-553 (2001). covered, just drops out. 12 trouble Preemption restriction freed otherwise had money made sense. done why few home. B Hypotheticals rest describes subjects prohibit, telecommunications. complicates things. customary usage, speak natural doing something. something different: clear, possible cuts law) business. 14 scope former, broader, meaning, consider specified water electricity nothing else.3 enumeration certainly operated entering (as clearly companies able do, see Rep. 103-367, 55 (1994)), implicit prohibition thus open preemption. did restriction? municipality freedom authority, further, legislation still powerless is, all, argument source granting 15 Now assume narrower construction (preempting derived source). Consider plenary itself, constitution, variety utility.4 Assume statutes authorized state-run deliver drew line restrictive element authorization afoul construe if, owing operating suddenly administrators raring new field, capital come from? Surely contention force agency's entitlement unappropriated funds treasury, exercise bonding authority. Or take application empowered services generally, forbidden special purpose real option arm chose funded venture. next door lacked to, crazy quilt. presumably quilt, arrived quilt fortuitous interaction forms 17 Finally, previously changed narrowing range authorization. once water, electric, communications sometime passage narrowed repealing prior broad reverse course. door, starting system devoid operation, change course venture forth. result, creation one-way ratchet. give power, away later. Private counterparts will, choice compete telecommunications; never (or, least, policy), expressing preempted. 18 ratchet, indeed host incongruities rely 253(b), insulates actions taken "on basis." Respondents contend mind deciding authorize entry. Tr. Oral Arg. 32-33. 19 answer. understood 253(b) neutrality require affecting types fashion, removing be. Federal-State Joint Board Universal Service, 15168, 15175-15178, ¶¶ 19-24 (2000) (declaratory ruling). An more fundamental weakness shown amici America. reason doubt them explain "neutral" word. every expect contrary, arena reflect intent intense lobbying directed choices, manifestly impede, enhance, Chen, Process Political Economy Reform, 97 Colum. Rev. 835, 866-868 (1997). notion process addressing susceptible capture competition-averse fully (and for) FCC's Missouri's disserve objects 1996. Given driven failure, fair 253(a), way, allow move solely toward alternative deliberately later on. 20 sum, farfetched entity." 543 (1940) (Court manner leads absurd futile results). C 21 STEVENS contends our use produces anomalous unnecessarily, whereas simpler fewer unhappy consequences available. dissent emphasizes "prohibit focus word, concludes "§ prohibits withdrawing command affirmatively grant carry out." Post, 145. books while defeat attempted withdrawal itself. 22 very page, allows (in disagreeing about ratchet) "[a] comprehensive favor enumerating specific powers. ." 146. out, inevitably, rate) goes clarify distinguish properly preemption), targets preempted). "[T]he thing do," explains, "is enact specifically aimed preventing services." Ibid. ha[s] prohibiting," Even formalistic explicit repeals incoherence policy; viewed lens anticompetitive action autonomy interference, justification self-consciously interfere short, instead supplying ends up IV 23 us it, choice, might. would, example, genuine provided newly unfettered wished fund effort. liberating interposing precedents teach, "are created convenient agencies exercising powers entrusted absolute discretion." Wisconsin Intervenor Mortier, 597, 607-608 (1991) (internal quotation marks, citations, alterations omitted); Columbus Ours Garage & Wrecker 536 424, 433 (2002). Hence need invoke threatening trench States' arrangements conducting should treated skepticism, preserves chosen disposition requires. What already show 24 judgment accordingly, 25 ordered. Notes: Together 02-1386,Federal 02-1405, fka Telephone court. &#x2020; curiae urging reversal Telecom Association Andrew McBride, Helgi Walker, Glover, Edward H. Shakin, T. McMenamin, Carrick Inabnett, Marc Gary, Dorian Denburg. Briefs affirmance Congressman Rick Boucher, town Abingdon, Virginia, Educause Steven Minor; Porter; Horwood Scott Strauss; High Tech Broadband Coalition Deborah Brand Baum; Knology, O. Stewart Thomas Smith; Lincoln Electric System Knudson, Douglas Curry, Austin; Council Jill Lyon Brett Kilbourne. International Lawyers Henry Underhill, Jr.; Sprint Corp. P. Murray Short. provision exceptions pertinent here, originally expire 2002. assembly pushed expiration date ahead 2007. Mo. (Supp. 2003) subdivision" "independent located By terms, chartered corporations, theory controlling State. 1158. implied opposite view, regarding status, been separately charteredIbid. these us, view proper resolution. city, "general law" "home rule." SeeCity Lockhart States, 460 125, 127 (1983) (In contrast home rule city constitutional whatever prohibited legislation). subsumed rubric holding reaches question. nevertheless, logical affinity presented situation decide, directly effectively, whom THOMAS joins, judgment. 27 I agree Court's Parts demonstrates several consequences. think, avoidance adequate basis interpreting text. Cf. ante, 140 ("The it"). ground discussed Part opinion: limit subdivisions. 28 address additional affects "power delivery" 129 (emphasis added), considered apparently answered negatively contained within certiorari. 29 dissenting. 30 (1996 Act), "a regime designed foster telephone markets." Verizon Md. Inc. Serv. Md., 535 635, 638 Reasonable minds differed markets serves disserves statute's procompetitive goals. hand, enjoy unfair deter firms impair development healthy, markets.1 members (FCC), charged implementation Act, "would further potential."2 cases not, side better debate. sides passed 31 1934, added 101 "[n]o service," unless "competitively neutral" "necessary protect safety welfare, ensure continued quality safeguard rights consumers." §§ (b). common among parties category "entities" protected Reply Petitioners 02-1238 ("Congress intend closed market, utilities"). confirms point: pre-empt "explicit prohibitions telecommunications." 104-230, (1996). 32 acknowledge unmistakable clarity Congress' utilities' markets, subset somehow less clear. assertion must assumptions: Either unaware exist, ignored existence drafting Both propositions implausible, given sheer States.3 Indeed, elsewhere definition "utility," Pole Attachments 224, "owned State," — indication aware many fact §§224(a)(1), (a)(3). Moreover, brought attention. hearings predecessor bill, heard representative Power described unique promote competition, cities, towns, underserved companies. Hearings 1822 Senate Committee Commerce, Science, Transportation, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 351-360 (1994) (statement J. Ray, Manager, Glasgow Plant Board).4 suppose precisely said: No entity, 33 remains necessarily suggests. Ante, "As cases[,] task interpret [the statute] light purposes sought serve." Chapman Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 600, 608 (1979). Before nullifying evident effort avoid results, decide reasonably absurdities, casting intent. 34 begins asking imagine else," failure "raring" 135. Certainly plausibly does, refusals impermissible observes, undeniably results; covered kind limbo, armed federal-law lacking state-law so. my fashion. embody i. e., capable direct assistance. pre-existing 35 Of asserts pre-emption municipality's closer examination, perhaps all. "national quilt" possibility each 136. acknowledges, permitting help "crazy product legislatures, ibid., renders leaving matter entirely individual discretion. 36 applying bar ratchet": "A later." 137. scaling way. powers, abolish altogether. "have prohibiting" 139, corporate governance entities' enter. "has restraining pre-empts constitute nonneutral restraints 253(b). redefinition constitutes restraint applicability that, practically speaking, difficult 37 This Missouri's, "advertise[s] [its] fac[e]." 139. accomplished similar carriers receive universal access unbundled network elements.5 notes, little "`neutral' word," impede enhance 138. protectionist creates "one-way ratchet," perfectly preserving define held subdivisions.6 38 concern inappropriate because pre-emptive automatic, intervention. Rather improperly, stretch imaginations identify problems confront problem hand endorse most reasonable fulfills avoids unnecessary infringement prerogatives. accordingly affirm Appeals. See,e. Note, Entry Cable Market: Recognizing Inequities Inherent Allowing Publicly Owned Systems Compete Directly Providers, 95 Nw. 1099 1157, 1172 Three Commissioners wrote underscore point. Tristani) (describing "promising competitors"); 1173 Ness) (noting "municipal serve across country, areas"). For 2001, 2,000 publicly compared 230 investor-owned utilities. Am. Assn., 2003 Annual Directory Statistical Report testimony prompted manager bill remark: "I associations, positioned contribution area, important sure got right wish here." Hearings, 379 Sen. Lott) operative Seeante, 139-140. rather, generally redefine indirect striking balance surely supplies "preempting services," applicable entryAnte, 140. asserts, "no justification" "self-consciously" valid refusing create interference. refuse "might gone farther did." Roschen Ward, 279 337, 339 (1929).

Category: 9