Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Ronald S. Molteni (argued the cause for Petitioner Nixon)
David A. Strauss (argued the cause for Respondents)
James A. Feldman (argued the cause for Petitioners)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
02-1238
Petitioner: 
Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., fka Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
Respondent: 
Missouri Municipal League, et al.
Consolidation: 
Federal Communications Commission and United States v. Missouri Municipal League, No. 02-1386
Southwestern Bell Telephone v. Missouri Municipal League, No. 02-1405
Opinion: 
541 U.S. 125 (2004)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League , 541 U.S. 125 (2004)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1238)
Facts of the Case: 

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed federal preemption of state and local regulations "prohibiting the ability of any entity" to provide telecommunications services. Based on this act, a group of local governments in Missouri (the Missouri Municipal League) asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to nullify a state law that prevented municipalities from providing telecommunications services. Missouri argued that municipal governments were not separate entities but merely subsections of the state government and that the state could therefore restrict their authority. The FCC agreed with the state, refusing to nullify the law.

The Municipal League appealed, and an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed the decision. The panel held the words "any entity" were intentionally broad and that a proper understanding of them would include municipal governments. The state could therefore not regulate attempts by municipalities to provide telecommunications services. The FCC, along with the state of Missouri and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Question: 

Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, are states permitted to regulate the provision of telecommunications services by municipal governments?

Conclusion: 

Yes. In an 8-1 opinion delivered by Justice David Souter, the Court held that the act allows states to prevent municipalities from providing telecommunications services. The act only allows federal preemption of state and local efforts to prevent "any private entity" from providing telecommunications services. The Court concluded it would be "unlikely" and "strange" if Congress intended to free municipal governments from state regulations because municipal governments rely on state governments for authority to regulate.

Decisions

Decision: 8 votes for Nixon, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 47 U.S.C. 253

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote a special concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote the majority opinion
Souter
Voted with the majority, joined Scalia's concurrence
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice David H. Souter