Legal Document

127 S. Ct. 1513 (2007) GLOBAL CROSSING TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. METROPHONES INC. No. 05-705. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 10, 2006. Decided April 17, 2007. *1515 Jeffrey L. Fisher, Seattle, WA, for the petitioner. Roy T. Englert, Jr., Washington, D.C., respondent. James A. Feldman, States as amicus curiae, by special leave Court, supporting Michael W. Ward, P.C., Buffalo Grove, IL, David J. Russell, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Counsel Record, Donald Damon Taaffe, Robbins, Orseck & Untereiner LLP, Respondent. Shortley, III, Global Crossing North America, Inc., Pittsford, NY, Daniel M. Waggoner, Kristina Silja Bennard, Davis Wright Tremaine Petitioner. *1516 Justice BREYER delivered opinion Court. The Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) has established rules that require long-distance (and certain other) communications carriers to compensate a payphone operator when caller uses obtain free access carrier's lines (by dialing, e.g., 1-800 number other code). added refusal pay compensation is "practice ... unjust unreasonable" within terms Act 1934, § 201(b), 48 Stat. 1070, 47 U.S.C. 201(b). language links 201(b) 207, which authorizes any person "damaged" violation bring lawsuit recover damages in federal court. And we must here decide whether this linked section, federal-court against recalcitrant carrier refuses Commission's order says it owes. In our view, FCC's application reasonable interpretation statute; hence lawful. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843-844, and n. 11, 104 2778, 81 Ed. 2d 694 (1984). And, given linkage with also conclude 207 lawsuit. I A Because regulatory history helps illuminate proper §§ begin history. When Congress enacted granted FCC broad authority regulate interstate telephone communications. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n FCC, 476 355, 360, 106 1890, 90 369 (1986). Commission, during first several decades its history, used develop traditional system much like systems commissions had applied regulating railroads, public utilities, common carriers. utility would file commission tariff containing rates, perhaps practices, classifications, regulations connection provision services. examine etc., and, after appropriate proceedings, approve them, set them aside, or, sometimes, forth substitute rate schedule list approved charges, practices follow. doing so, might determine utility's overall costs (including profit), allocate particular services, whether, how, individual rates generate revenue help cover those costs, if necessary, provide division revenues among together provided single service. 203, 205(a); Missouri ex rel. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. Public Mo., 262 276, 291-295, 43 544, 67 981 (1923) (Brandeis, J., concurring judgment) (telecommunications); Verizon 535 467, 478, 122 1646, 152 701 (2002) (same); Chicago Western R. Atchison, S.F.R. Co., 387 326, 331, 87 1585, 18 803 (1967) (railroads); Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 747, 761-765, 806-808, 88 S.Ct. *1517 1344, 20 312 (1968) (natural gas field production). authorizing form regulation, copied into 1934 from earlier Interstate Commerce 1887, 24 379, (as amended) authorized railroad regulation. American Telegraph Central Office Telephone, 524 214, 222, 118 1956, 141 222 (1998). Indeed, largely 1, 8, 9 wrote sections at issue here. relevant (in both statutes) authorize declare "charge," "regulation," "practice" services be "unjust unreasonable"; they an "unreasonable," "charge" "unlawful"; injured "damages" "unlawful" charge practice; state that, do may suit "court" "of States." 9, 382; 206, 207. Historically speaking, changed early, preregulatory common-law rate-supervision procedures. law originally permitted freight shipper ask court was unreasonably high award "reparations." "new" law, however, made clear commission, not court, rate's reasonableness. At same time, unreasonable collect damages. 8-9; Arizona Grocery 284 370, 383-386, 52 183, 76 348 (1932); Texas Pacific Abilene Cotton Oil 204 426, 436, 440-441, 27 350, 51 553 (1907); Keogh Northwestern 260 156, 162, 47, 183 (1922); Louisville Nashville Ohio Valley Tie 242 288, 290-291, 37 120, 61 305 (1916); Ely, Railroads Law 71-72, 226-227 (2001); Hoogenboom O. Hoogenboom, History ICC (1976). similar indicates roughly sharing agency courts. Beginning 1970's, came believe markets efficiently support more than one firm competition supplement (or for) MCI Telecommunications Corp. 512 218, 220-221, 114 2223, 129 182 (1994). facilitated entry new telecommunications markets. 1990's, amended while enacting statutes, encourage sometimes mandate) competition. 1996, 110 56, 609 et seq. Neither nor totally abandoned requirements. statutes amendments left many requirements related statutory provisions, including place. E.g., National Cable Assn. Brand X Internet Services, 545 967, 975, 125 2688, 162 820 (2005). B problem underlies arises intersection *1518 regulation newer, competitively oriented approaches. Competing seek business local callers, who wish make call payphone. operator, controls what necessary channel reach carrier. prior 1990, exploiting control, use favored blocking caller's preferred Such practice substituted operator's choice caller's, potentially placed disfavored competitive disadvantage. legislation requiring operators allow user "free" his her choice, i.e., without depositing coins. Operator Consumer Services Improvement 986, codified 226. (For ease exposition, often familiar such "long distance" calls instead precise "interexchange" "coinless" "dial-around" calls.) recognized impose cost upon operator; consequently required "prescribe establish per plan ensure all service providers are fairly compensated each every completed intrastate call." 276(b)(1)(A) 151 106, 276(b)(1)(A). then considered problem. Using ratemaking methods, found (fixed incremental) to, say, warranted reimbursement (at time litigation) $0.24 call. ordered reimburse amount unless agreed different amount. CFR 64.1300(d) pass along their customers, callers. Thus, typical call, will bill share receivesto tune callwith has, carrier, furnished caller. subsequently determined amounts "unreasonable practice" (We shall refer these Compensation Order 2003 Payphone Order, respectively. Appendix A, infra, full citations.) generally P. Huber, Kellogg, Thorne, 8.6.3, pp. 710-713 (2d ed.1999) (hereinafter Huber). That determination, believed, permit under owed. Rcd. 19975, 19990, ¶ 32. C 2003, respondent, Metrophones Telecommunications, brought sought said owed 14 2545 (1999). Insofar here, claimed Crossing's amounted thereby permitting *1519 sue District agreed. 423 F.3d 1056, 1061 (C.A.9 2005). Ninth Circuit affirmed Court's determination. Ibid. We certiorari II Section "[a]ny claiming damaged suit" "in district States" "recovery liable provisions chapter." (emphasis added). This makes could properly hold failure deemed because immediately preceding "liable" "damages sustained consequence of" "any act, matter, thing chapter prohibited declared unlawful." declares common-carrier "charge, practice, classification, unreasonable." (See B, text; emphasis throughout). sectionsincluding predecessors, 8 Act simply reinforces language, making purpose persons violations actions. See, U.S., 384-385, (Interstate 8-9); Part I-A, supra. long implemented through issuance regulations. obviously so take approval prescription future exclusively "reasonable." 205 (authorizing prescribe preclude violate 201(b)); 5 551(4) ("`rule' includes practices"). It example, accounting methods insist here) prohibiting others e.g. (to name few), Tel. Cos. 453 487, 494 (C.A.D.C.2006) (rates unlawful) adjusted pursuant regulations); Wireless P.L.C. 166 1224, 1231 (C.A.D.C.1999) (failure follow Commission-ordered settlement unreasonable); 59 1407, 1414 (C.A.D.C.1995) (violation rate-of-return unlawful); re NOS Communications, 16 8133, 8136, 6, 2001 WL 310999 (2001) (deceptive marketing practice); Promotion Competitive Networks Local Markets, 15 22983, 23000, 35, 2000 1593327 (2000) (entering exclusive contracts commercial building owners practice). statute's concerned, lawfully implements 201(b)'s statute. Corp., F.3d, ("We have repeatedly held force therefore *1520 treat se requirement maintain `just reasonable' see 201(b)"); cf. Alexander Sandoval, 532 275, 284, 121 1511, 149 517 (it "meaningless talk about separate cause action enforce apart statute"). why private litigants assumed may, statute says, rule Oh AT T F. Supp. 551, 556 (NJ 1999) (assuming validity alleging listed FCC-approved tariff); Allnet Servs., 789 302, 304-306 (E.D.Mo.1992) determination payment charges exchange carrier); cf., Transp. F.2d 1221, 1224-1225 (C.A.7 1979) (same respect equivalents 207). difficult question, then, covers actions complain plainly does. remains us before prohibition. now turn question. view one; 2778. easily fits phrase. ordinary English, can despite having received benefit "practic[e] [furnishing a] communication service... provides constitutes integral part total caller, carriage divide receives collaborator, reasonably called with" "unreasonable." Cf. post, 1530-1533 (THOMAS, dissenting). Moreover, underlying regulated activity resembles transportation agencies regulated. Here carrying portion (the portion) begins proceeds payphone, attached wires, loops, distant recipient. allocates joint requires downstream carriers, effect, upstream operators. Traditionally, some segments revenues. Smith Illinois 282 133, 148-151, 65, 75 255 (1930) (communications). traditionally, providing *1521 larger (for San Francisco-Ogden segment Francisco-New York shipment) New England Divisions Case, 261 184, 270, 605 (1923); 803; P.L.C., supra, 1231. instances instances, firms entitled divisions allocations lawsuits equivalent Act, Communication Serv., Exch. Carrier Assn., 965 1118, 1122 (C.A.D.C.1992) (§ 207); 305, 544 Again, similarities reasonableness agency's bringing result suggest find carriers' failures instance. Telepacific Tel-America Salt Lake City, 19 24552, 24555-24556, 27, 2004 2889847 (2004) (citing cases). Nor practice. there explicit scheme, implementation scheme. Under circumstances, finding well authority. There are, course, differences between present classification subject matter just described. For thing, "through route" 201(a). another, amici point out, word traditionally (unlike one) tariffi.e., filing sets practices. Brief al. Amici Curiae 8-11. concede differences. tariffs "the centerpiece" "[Communications] Act's scheme." 220, 2223. But outcome. Statutory changes enhancing role radically reduced play supervision mixed systema relies Yet rewrote changes, nonetheless fact permits, indeed suggests likely expected, pour substantive wine old bottles. Policy Rules Concerning Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, 12 15014, 15057, 77, 1997 473330 (1997) (despite absence tariffs, 201 enforcement obligations diminished); Boomer 309 404, 422 2002) (same). circumstance, indicating *1522 did forbid apply differently environment, sufficient convince where "Congress expect able speak addresses ambiguity fills space law," "is obliged accept position previously spoken interpretation" manner "gap") Mead 533 229, 2164, 150 292 980, 2688; Congress, delegated "fill" "gap," orders law. 980-981, 2688. circumstances mentioned above congressional light discussed, nothing Crossing, amici, dissents additional but ultimately unpersuasive arguments. First, claims only "seeking violations" "violations merely promulgated carry out objectives." Petitioner original). us, "seek[s] [a] violatio[n]," namely, prohibition practice." As pointed 1519, prohibitions been thought extend diverge prescriptions, "unreasonable" reflect embodied no limitation kind suggests. seeks draw (2001), Adams Fruit Barrett, 638, 1384, 108 585 (1990), which, cannot party action. Those cases involve actions, Crossing. regulations, holding relied on specific it. 288-289, implied right provision, 42 2000d, implementing 2000d-1. contrast, addressing ambiguous expressly Nothing Sandoval limit deference 201(b); contrary, noted intends enforced authoritative well." 1511. *1523 646-647, rejected worker-protection contrary plain meaning language." Given context, two beside point. Our analysis does change case adopted 276. acting prescribed revenues) applicable service, jointly provide. conclusion fail 276 conclusion; conclusion. courts treated closely analogous rate-division determinations finds Baltimore O.R. Alabama Great Southern 506 1265, 1270 (C.A.D.C.1974) (statutory obligation "implemented ICC" issued provision). resting analogy setting divisions, traditional, historical avoid back-door remedy Second, SCALIA, dissenting, "only serious presented [is] itself rendered thus itself) violates Commission." Post, 1527-1528. He answers question "no," because, "violation give rise action." 1528. either SCALIA's statement "serious issue" answer. itself" irrelevant. authoritatively ruled consider, fair carried supplying partial carriage. violating seem characterized English practice," should 201(b)? agree claim when, explicitly (Emphasis added.) *1524 substantive/interpretive distinction SCALIA emphasizes, 1528, matter? certainly reference text interpretive Why scarcely knew century ago blossoming administrative care issue? even were relevant, "substantive" "legislative") 205. 1 Pierce, Administrative Treatise 6.4, p. 325 (4th ed.2002); 1528-1529. clearly 1414. Conversely, plaintiff kept challenged took "substantive regulation" rather "interpretive regulation." adjectives "traditional" "textually based" describe distinctions, 1529, "novel" "absurd" ours, 1527, note disagreement. cites three sources theory. But, offer him support. None involved of, section namely regulationsubstantive interpretivepromulgated subsequent Thus none hand. APCC Sprint 418 1238, 1247 (C.A.D.C.2005) (per curiam) ("There case"); Greene 340 1047, 1052 2003) 276; silent 201(b)). judge interpreted occurred us) reached do. 1254. (D.H.Ginsburg, C. dissenting) (finding action, "clearly 201(b)" unlawful). Huber 3.14.3, 317 (no discussion Third, THOMAS (who adopt arguments) disagrees term "practice." He, 201(a) (b) concern harm suppliers. 1531-1532 (dissenting opinion); 37-38. say. significant dividing harmed another shipper. F.2d, 1225-1226 ("Act inter-carrier relations general policy"). Once takes account fact, seems reasonable, unreasonable, include 207) beneficiary performs longer dealing supplies office manual labor. Cf., Norwood, 283 249, 257, 458, 1010 (1931) ("practice" *1525 encompass employment decisions). provider consumer like. precisely demand enables telecommunication public," prices pay" foreign international call). Fourth, argues unlawful inadequately reasoned. initial states context cross-referenced opinions, Rcd., 32 Council 215 51, 56 (C.A.D.C.2000)), rationale obvious, 1519-1520, mandate compensation. NetworkIP, LLC, 21 10488, 10493-10495, ¶¶ 13-16, 2006 2668799 (2006) (Order) (spelling reasoning). Fifth 1518, prohibits classification. 26-28. "take ensure" "are compensated." 276(b)(1). nowhere forbids rely Rather, helping secure mandated furthers basic purposes. Finally, rest "every intrastate," "interstate" payphone-related (referring 201(a)) extends "interstate foreign" communication. 37. too little. assume argument's sake) Order's Comm'n, 375, 4, 1890 (suggesting "not possible components"). repeat question), achieve substantial compensatory mission. imagine (implicitly language) wished concluding half loaf better none. reasons, judgment affirmed. ordered. APPENDIXES TO OPINION OF THE COURT Implementation Pay Reclassification *1526 Provisions 2545, 2631-2632, 190-191, 1999 49817 (1999) (Compensation Order). 32, 22283556 (2003) (2003 201: "(a) duty engaged wire radio furnish request therefor; accordance opportunity hearing, desirable interest, physical connections routes thereto facilities operating routes." "(b) All charge, unlawful: Provided, classified day, night, repeated, unrepeated, letter, commercial, press, Government, classes communications: Provided further, construed prevent entering contract chapter, interest: furnishing reports positions ships sea newspapers circulation, nominal displayed ship reports. interest 201. 206: "In do, done, unlawful, omit counsel attorney's fee, fixed recovery, fee taxed collected case." 206. 207: "Any complaint *1527 hereinafter for, recovery competent jurisdiction; pursue remedies." dissenting. Telecommunication instructed (FCC Commission) establishing operators, leaving up how much. Pursuant authority, cents payphone-compensation regulation). comply (which practices) privately actionable 206 establishes Act). Today's defended accepting propositions laws: (1) compensation, (2) coyly avoids rejecting proposition. mistake: proposition utterly implausible, opinion. unjustness unreasonableness case, any, consists regulation.[1] Absent neither decline act collection agent companies. using company network absurd natural identify use, customer forward company. command, sense (though free-rider solved fashion); but, absent way nothing. own right, unnecessary, *1528 companies sued directly relates second proposition: Commission. answer affirmative, least conclusion, conflicts carefully delineated remedial draws mean construe express delegation freestanding legal beyond created itself). itselfand interpreting itself. (As explains, comes "reasonabl[y][and] itself," "it `meaningless statute.'" Ante, 1520 (quoting 1511).) On hand, curiam), cert. pending, 05-766; 2003), denied, 541 988, 124 2026, 158 492 (2004); 3.14.3 ed.1999).[2] separately rights 227(b)(3) 227(b) (2000 ed. III)); 227(c)(5) 227(c)). These 276(b). doubt 201(b)that is, specify themselves Orders ante, 1523, place, similarly implement proscription explained above, predicated *1529 naively describes posed follows: Since "[a] `unjust practice,' 201(b)?" 1523. reasons simple that. "order" sense, 551(6), regulation.[3] never petitioner compliance. respondent alleged allegation adjudication. violating" virtually ("in English") practice"or practice"so become damage textually based) enforceability rules, nonenforceability effectively destroyed. (3) "call it" not. If were, discretion available harassing litigation competitors. margins, (1984), always remain power parties go asserting "unjust" basis asks (more still) "what [this dissent] emphasizes 201(b).... issue?" 1523-1524 (citation omitted). questions obvious. 1072) yet acknowledges itself), (Were true, lengthy wholly unnecessary 206.) evidently believes went exclude interpret Act) perfectly willing very back door "interpretation" *1530 familiarity law" perceive nonsensical.[4] Seemingly aware danger rendering nullity, novel "analog[ous] rate-setting 201(b)," 1523 absolutely (nor anywhere opinion). described earlier, enforceable private-suit subjects addressed, supremely irrelevant Actwhich pertinent inquiry. inventive stand massive Better irrational limitation, suppose, all; though unclear restrictive be. What there, wonders, regarded "analogous" taken comprehend good thinks achieving introduction unprincipled exception hitherto understood Even availability remedies, hardly unenforced. civil forfeiture penalties $100,000 continuing violations) "willfully fai[l] rule, 503(b)(1)(B). place hands issuing forbidding continued violation. 154(i), 276(b)(1)(A), 407. order, adjudication violated, preventing unjustified suits today's decision allows. lie plausibly fit description, reverse Appeals. THOMAS, holds coinless *1531 Properly understood, conduct Failing regulates activities such, behavior aspects business. respectfully dissent. becomes read, be, entirety Subsection (a) duties discretionary powers carrier: "It Immediately following description powers, subsection requires: "All ...." "charges, regulations" referred "establish[ed]" (a). Having (a), exercise "just reasonable." failing (b). prescribes render customers ("furnish[ing] service") (e.g., "establish[ing] connections"); receipt Consequently, relationship subsections (b), "practices" connected embraced critical (1931), means "`practice' fixing charged prescribing carriers." Id., 458. Mann-Elkins years later Act. 1527; 7 1910, 36 546. passing "be presumed knowledge" Norwood. Lorillard Pons, 434 575, 581, 98 866, 55 40 (1978). result, contemporaneous bear heavily analysis. Other Norwood's known keeps," "ascrib[e] inconsistent accompanying words." Gustafson Alloyd 513 *1532 561, 115 1061, 131 (1995). Of quartet regulations," "charges," "classifications," "regulations" "furnish[ing]" "[C]harges" refers routes. 201(a), 202(b). "[R]egulations" operation "[C]lassifications" sorts charges. provision. keeping terms, surrounding confirm interpretation. 203 "[e]very carrier... schedules showing connecting affecting charges." 204-205 (also phrase context). "charges" ("charges carriers"). "classifications, limited (applying "affecting charges"). charged." 202outside context supports limitation. discrimination facilities, services." Discrimination occurs servicenot purchasing others. am unaware 202-205 relating Metrophones. failed supplied. supplier Accordingly, come understanding 201, violation, 207.[1] majority compels *1533 unreasonable. term, not, deference, abdicate responsibility Chevron, due until analyzes determines consideration: "The judiciary final issues construction reject constructions intent. employing tools construction, ascertains intention issue, effect." 843, spends short paragraph analyzing "`unjust unreasonable'" "`practice.'" 1529. Its entire essentially encompassed sentence paragraph: "That `practice unreasonable.'" (omissions modifications ignores interaction 1530-1531; provide, 1531-1532; nearby 202-205, 1532; 1531-1532. After breezing lower regulated." 1118 (C.A.D.C.1992), 302 (E.D.Mo.1992)). demonstrate "communications damages." 1521. cases, dismissed primary yes. Allnet, 1120-1123; Bell, 304-306, 544. reliance entirely misplaced lacked address allthe sole case; deciding applies, grappling support.[2] *1534 III independent "practice," calls. unjust-and-unreasonable applies "practices service," "such service" radio" Disregarding 64.1300 limits involving communication," To matters worse, bothered explain misinterpretation. 19975 (2003). argument stating reason "to none." 1525. cut off loaf. By sidestepping gives guidance handle remand. IV allows contradicts unambiguous text, NOTES [1] ¶32 ("[F]ailure 10493, ¶15 rises level being "a direct rules"); id., ¶15, 46 ("The specifically distinguishes situation situations declined entertain `collection actions' "). [2] asserts "[n]one th[ese] [cases] §201(b)[,] §201(b)." 16. agree. They §201(b), §276. §206. [3] departure usage commonly adopts opinions `orders.' " Util. Me., 742 8-9 (CA1 1984) (Breyer, J.). §407 [4] further `substantive' `legislative') §205," [which] §201(b)," §205 §201(b)'s (§205 "authoriz[es] §201(b)"). §201(b) mechanisms exist redress pay. (FCC) fines 503(b)(1)(B) (2)(B). addition, create 276(b)(1) (giving necessary" "establish plan" ensures "all compensated"). majority's citation 1221 1979), misplaced. There, Appeals "`establish just, equitable divisions'" 1224. understand Seventh Circuit's face case.

Classification Label: 7