Legal Document

535 U.S. 635 VERIZON MARYLAND INC.v.PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF ET AL. No. 00-1531. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued December 5, 2001. Decided May 20, 2002.* CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT The Telecommunications Act 1996 (Act) requires that incumbent localexchange carriers (LECs) "provide ... interconnection with" their existing networks when a new entrant seeks access to market, 47 U. S. C. § 251(c)(2); then establish "reciprocal compensation arrangements" for transporting and terminating calls each others' customers, 251(b)(5); agreements be submitted state utility commission approval, 252(e)(1). Petitioner Verizon Maryland Inc., LEC in Maryland, negotiated an agreement with competitor later acquired by respondent MCI WorldCom, Inc. After Public Service Commission (Commission) approved agreement, informed WorldCom it would no longer pay reciprocal made Verizon's customers local numbers Internet Providers (ISPs) because ISP traffic was not "local traffic" subject agreement. filed complaint Commission, which ordered make payments past future ISP-bound calls. action Federal District Court, citing 252(e)(6) 28 1331 as basis jurisdiction, naming defendants its individual members official capacities, other competing LECs. sought declaratory judgment order unlawful injunction prohibiting enforcement, alleging determination must violated Communications ruling. dismissed action. Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding had waived Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit; doctrine Ex parte Young, 209 123, does permit suit against commissioners capacities; neither nor provides jurisdiction over claims private defendants. Held: 1. Section claim Commission's requiring is pre-empted federal law. courts have under where petitioner's right recover will sustained if law given one construction defeated another, unless clearly appears immaterial solely obtain or wholly insubstantial frivolous. Steel Co. v. Citizens Better Environment, 523 83, 89. Here, resolution turns on whether Act, FCC ruling, precludes ordering payment compensation, there suggestion Even (which party aggrieved commission's 252 may bring determine meets requirements §§ 251 252) confer divest district authority 1331. Cf. Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 141. distinctive review mechanism actions covers, distinctively limit substantive relief available. Finally, none Act's provisions evince any intent preclude determination. Pp. 641-644. 2. Young permits go forward capacities. thus need decide voluntarily participating regulatory regime established Act. In determining avoids bar suit, court only conduct "straightforward inquiry" into alleges ongoing violation properly characterized prospective. Idaho Coeur d'Alene Tribe Idaho, 521 261, 296, 298-299. prayer injunctive — officials restrained enforcing contravention controlling satisfies our inquiry." As relief, even though declaration past, well future, ineffectiveness action, so parties' financial liability affected, State, commissioners, at issue, see Edelman Jordan, 415 651, 668. Circuit's inapplicable probably inconsistent unavailing: inquiry lies include analysis merits claim, d'Alene, supra, 281. Nor merit argument constitutes detailed exclusive remedial scheme like held Seminole Fla. Florida, 517 44, 75, implicitly exclude actions. 645-648. 240 F. 3d 279, vacated remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion all Members joined, except O'Connor, who took part consideration decision cases. KENNEDY, concurring opinion, post, p. 648. SOUTER, Ginsburg BREYER, JJ., 649. Mark L. Evans argued cause petitioner With him briefs were Michael K. Kellogg, Sean A. Lev, Aaron M. Panner, William P. Barr, J. Mathis, D. Lowe, David Hill. Barbara McDowell her Solicitor General Olson, Acting Assistant Attorney Katsas, Deputy Wallace, B. Stern, Charles W. Scarborough, John Rogovin. Susan Stevens Miller brief Maryland. Paul Smith, Hohengarten, DeSanctis, Darryl Bradford, Hamill, Thomas O'Neil III, Single IV, Brian Leske et al.â JUSTICE SCALIA Court. 1 These cases present question telecommunication carrier's telephone violates 2 * (1996 Act), Pub. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, created telecommunications designed foster competition markets. Toward end, imposed various obligations local-exchange (LECs), including duty share competitors. See 251(c) (1994 ed., Supp. V). When incumbent's network, 251(c)(2), placed 251(b)(5). we previously described, AT&T Corp. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 366, 371-373 (1999), "may negotiate enter binding agreement" "to fulfill duties" 251(b) (c), but "without regard standards set forth" those provisions. 252(a)(1), 251(c)(1). That 252(e)(1), reject discriminates carrier consistent "the public interest, convenience, necessity," 252(e)(2)(A). 3 required formerly known Bell Atlantic competitors, MFS Intelenet Six months later, (ISPs), claiming traffic"1 ISPs connect distant Web sites. disputed Commission. found favor timely owed [WorldCom] ISP" withheld pending dispute. appealed court, affirmed order. 4 Subsequently, (FCC) issued ruling Appeals Columbia Circuit, Tel. Cos. FCC, 206 (2000) categorized ISPbound nonlocal purposes concluded that, absent calls, commissions could construe compensation. arguing provide traffic. 3-to-2 decision, rejected this contention, concluding matter contract law, agreed treat 5 States complaint, order, 6 divided panel affirmed. 279 (2001). up 123 (1908), It Both States, intervenor below, petitioned four questions resolved Circuit. Because granted certiorari Mathias Technologies, 532 903 (2001), raised case oral tandem Mathias. 533 928 argument, reasons explained released today, 682, remaining three presented these 534 1072 II 7 Verizon, contend independently grant subject-matter sets forth procedures relating formation approval agreements, continuing terms conditions (called "[s]tatements generally available terms," 252(f)) provides, relevant part: "In State makes section, such appropriate statement section title section." issue here disapproval terms. argue, however, encompasses interpret enforce has approved,2 interpretation enforcement therefore "determination [§ 252]" review. Whether text can construed decide. For agree alternative least compliance 8 alleged unlawful, enforcement. We doubt entertain suit. "on ground regulation statute which, virtue Supremacy Clause Constitution, prevail," "thus presents resolve." Shaw Delta Air Lines, 463 85, 96, n. 14 (1983). 9 contends since create challenge express premise argument. "It firmly absence valid (as opposed arguable) implicate i. e., courts' statutory constitutional power adjudicate case." 89 (1998). said, `the petitioners Constitution laws are they another,' `clearly purpose obtaining frivolous.'" Ibid. (citations omitted). thereunder, "`immaterial'" "`wholly 10 falls within 1331's general contrary conclusion, nothing purports strip jurisdiction. "makes 252]." If does) merely some reviewable court. This enough eliminate Although situation precisely parallel (in elimination district-court amount review), think what said 141 (1967), nonetheless apt: "The mere fact acts should suffice support implication exclusion others." (Internal quotation marks citation omitted.) And more than fact. covers (the same 1331: Fausto, 484 439, 448-449 (1988). Indeed, mention reads conferral ("[A]ny court," 252(e)(6)). Co., 90-91 (even provision uses word "jurisdiction" relate "subject-matter jurisdiction"); also Davis Passman, 442 228, 239, 18 (1979). 11 finally, anything, reinforce conclusion 252(e)(6)'s silence leaves jurisdictional untouched. otherwise applicable meant excluded, excluded expressly. 252(e)(4) provides: "No shall approving rejecting sum, displays withdraw 1331; presume means says fairly implies.3 III 12 bars commissioners. counter participated another decide, parties argue waiver, proceed pursuant (1908). 13 [the] prospective." 296 (1997) (O'CONNOR, joined Scalia Thomas, judgment); id., 298-299 (SOUTER, Stevens, Ginsburg, dissenting). Here preempted suits contexts. See, e. g., Prentis Coast Line 211 210, 230 (1908) ("[W]hen rate fixed bill restrain bad proper form remedy"); Alabama Serv. Comm'n Southern R. 341 341, 344, (1951); McNeill 202 543 (1906); Smyth Ames, 169 466 (1898); Reagan Farmers' Loan & Trust 154 362 (1894). itself (including attorney appealed) enjoin railroad reduction rates. S., 129. relief: That, sure, affected. But issue. impose upon "a monetary loss resulting breach legal defendant officials." 668 (1974). Insofar exposure concerned, adds injunction. suggested brought after all. 3d, 295-297. noted relied seem require traffic; ruling; interpreted contract-law principles. (or not) true FCC's since-vacated claim; contends, applies disputes regarding claim. 281 ("An allegation ordinarily sufficient" (emphasis added)). 15 display foreclose Indian Gaming Regulatory did 44 (1996). There sued Florida violating 25 2710(d)(3). Congress specified 2710(d)(7), "intended define, significantly, 2710(d)(3)." 74. "intricate provision" prescribed directing negotiate, submit mediation, Secretary Interior notified. Id., 74-75. "this quite modest sanctions" displayed "more complete immediate relief" Young. 75. Permitting "detailed scheme," 74 limited State's negotiate. Tribe, excluding actions, without merit. certain "determinations," 252. "determinations" places restriction award. say whom commission, benefiting authorized complies "impose significantly officer Young." 75-76. 16 17 conclude vacate remand further proceedings opinion. ordered. 19 O'CONNOR Notes: Together 00-1711,United al., â Lesley Szanto Friedman, Aidan Synnott, Martha Davis, Isabelle Katz Pinzler, Steven Shapiro, Karen Narasaki, Vincent Eng, Herbert Semmel, Marcia Greenberger, Dina Lassow, Elliot Mincberg NOW Legal Defense Education Fund al. amici curiae urging reversal. Briefs affirmance Illinois James E. Ryan, General, Joel Bertocchi, Benjamin Goldgar Doyle, Attorneys Myra Karegianes, Kelliher, Stanton; Virginia Corporation H. Chambliss. [REPORTER'S NOTE: On January 22, 2002, 1110, motion TCG Illinois, Mathis 7, 1076, February 19, 1124, motions filers considered cases.] 1.61 "`Reciprocal Compensation' Described refers arrangements costs incurred transport termination Local Traffic originating Party's network network." turn, 1.44 defines "`Local Traffic'" "traffic originated Customer Party terminates calling area, expanded area service (`EAS') defined [Bell Atlantic's] effective tariffs. terminated commercial mobile radio carrier." both 1934 approves 304 (2001) (citing 152(b), Md. Util. Code Ann. 2-113 (1998)). dispute confers authority, lacked suggests theRooker-Feldman exercising Feldman, 460 462 (1983); Rooker Fidelity 263 413 (1923). Rooker-Feldman recognizes original authorize exercise appellate state-court judgments, reserved 1257(a). application judicial executive determinations administrative agency. 20 concurring. 21 stated I capacity plaintiff commissioner violate poses bar. 271 (principal REHNQUIST, J.). 22 unlike plaintiffs tried use sovereignty territory boundaries. case, "`straightforward inquiry,'" endorses here, ante, 645, proves complex. seven described request prospective relief; three, deceptively simple test been met. 23 my view, jurisprudence careful sovereign interests respect supremacy 267-280 believe approach, not, path followed many preceding it. necessary. Were otherwise, Amendment, become fiction. 24 litigation, parallels very permitted itself. explanation, join GINSBURG BREYER join, 26 Court's Part rests us upon:1 assumption Amendment2 bar, apparently start open write separately Amendment. 27 While named defendant, nominal one. "suing" it, seek money damages, sort litigant.3 enjoining purely state-law orders dubious constitutionality, requested itself, 129-131. Instead, wrongly decided law4 decisional conferred (Act), person wield. accordingly running different adjudication Court,5 whose error today things way reverse qua regulator, dishonor done dignity accepted congressionally matters first instance? One answer might unconstitutional indignity. do how right. At applying simply formality process Administrative Law Treatise (2d ed. 1983) ("[T]he now always reach [federal] specific making remedy exclusive"). position "[i]t regarded settled `that prohibition 11th determined reference record.'" re Ayers, 443, 487 (1887) (alteration original) (quoting Poindexter Greenhow, 114 270, 287 (1885)). applicability pivots formalism wrong side "v." name appeal, becomes accident captioning practice reviewed courts. matter, formal governmental body circumstances universal practice. appeals system,6 uniform among several caption appealing utility.7 29 credible response, credit advances, strong interest challenged.8 Supplemental Brief Respondents 21-24. An adverse appeal affect time decides successful thinks instance. Cohens Virginia, Wheat. 264, 412 (1821) (a writ "suit" Amendment); McKesson Division Alcoholic Beverages Tobacco, Dept. Business Regulation, 496 18, 31 (1990) ("The constrain arising courts") (unanimous Court); cf. Const., Art. VI ("This Laws supreme Land").9 comes stateagency reviewing prudent natural impugning implicating States' system. doing, aside moment conviction majority embraced fundamentally mistaken. SeeAlden Maine, 527 706, 760 (1999) (dissenting opinion); 100 (1996) opinion). Judicial extend equity, commenced prosecuted Subjects Foreign State." Amdt. Cfe. Board Trustees Univ. Ala. Garrett, 531 356, 360 (money damages employer Title Americans Disabilities 1990); Kimel Bd. Regents, 528 62, 66 Age Discrimination Employment 1967); Alden 712 Fair Labor Standards 1938 court); Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense College Savings Bank, 627, 633 patent infringement); Bank 666, 671 (same trademark violations); (suit compel good faith); Hans Louisiana, 134 (1890) failure honor securities). observed "that suing irrelevant barred Amendment," 58, context (to negotiate) damages. My point conventional sorts (and relief) kind agency reciprocal-compensation privately address committed directly Courts Appeal. 2342(1); 402(a) ed.) 702-703; Fed. Rule App. Proc. 15(a)(2)(B) See,e. Hawaiian Elec. 81 Haw. 459, 918 2d 561 (1996); Petition Interstate Power 416 N. 800 (Minn. Ct. 1987); Appeal Campaign Ratepayers Rights, 145 671, 766 702 (2001); Declaratory Ruling Northwestern 560 925 (S. 1997); 171 Vt. 447, 769 (2000). obliquely questioned strength noting "under necessary much less State-court determinations."Bell Md., Worldcom, 295 while cited, 3-204(d) (1998), "[t]he may," must, "be appeal," agencies "`the functions identified execution definite policy representative participation litigation affecting decisions Legislature essential adequate protection interests.'" Calvert County Planning Howlin Realty Management, 364 301, 315, 772 1209, 1216-1217 Zoning McKinney, 174 551, 561, 199 540, 545 (1938)). A possible distinction reviews initially statecommission controversy dignitary implicated sign sovereignty. SeeFarquhar Georgia (C. Ga. 1791) (Iredell, J.), reprinted Documentary History 1789-1800, pp. 148-154 (M. Marcus 1994) ("It presumed thought important stipulate awful [and] Trial [to party] cognizable Supreme"). long congressional abrogation, presumes instance 55.

Classification Label: 9