The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, October 13, 1998
Decision: Monday, January 25, 1999
Issues: Economic Activity, Telephone Company Regulation

Advocates

William P. Barr (Argued the cause for the cross-petitioners/respondents)
David W. Carpenter (Argued the cause for the private cross-respondents/petitioners)
Bruce J. Ennis, Jr. (Argued the cause for the private petitioners)
Diane Munns (Argued the cause for the State Commission respondents)
Laurence H. Tribe (Argued the cause for the private respondents)
Seth P. Waxman (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the federal cross-respondents/petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The 1996 Telecommunications Act (Act) fundamentally altered local telephone markets by ending the monopolies traditionally given to local exchange carriers (LECs) by states and subjecting LECs to a host of duties meant to facilitate market entry. Among these was the imposition of an obligation on incumbent LECs to share their networks with competitors. Following the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) issuance of regulations implementing the Act's guidelines, AT&T challenged their constitutionality on behalf of itself and other existing phone service providers.

Question

Does the Federal Communication Commission have authority to implement the competition-inducing guidelines set out in the 1996 Telecommunications Act?

Conclusion

Yes. In a complicated split opinion, the Court held that the FCC has rulemaking authority to uphold those provision of the Act in question. Despite the local nature of some of the LECs involved, the Court emphasized their interconnectivity with regional and national carriers. As such, the FCC could also reach local LEC markets and regulate their competitive business practices. Such regulatory authority would include the ability to tell LECs what portions of their services they had to share with new competitors, allow new competitors to use local networks without having to own them, and forbid incumbent LECs from separating their network elements before leasing them to competitors.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 7 votes for AT&T, 1 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Communication Act of 1934
Did not participate
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote a special concurrence, joined Thomas' concurrence
Breyer
Wrote a dissent
Souter
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority, joined Thomas' concurrence
Rehnquist
Wrote the majority opinion
Scalia
Wrote a special concurrence
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. 366 (1999),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_97_826/>
(last visited ).