<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" version="2.0">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: Federalism Issues - Public Utilities Arguments</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/issues/federalism/public-utilities/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  <itunes:image>http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg</itunes:image>
  <itunes:category text="Government &amp; Organizations"/>
      <itunes:subtitle>U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</itunes:subtitle>
    
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Central VA Comm. College v. Katz - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Katz, the supervisor of a bookstore that declared bankruptcy, filed a suit to collect debts owed to the bookstore by Central Virginia Community College and several other schools operated by the state of Virginia. Katz also petitioned to prevent the schools from filing claims to collect money from the bookstore because of its bankruptcy status. The colleges argued that they could not be sued by Katz because of state sovereign immunity (which holds that a state must consent in order to be sued). The bankruptcy court disagreed, however, finding that Congress's authority under the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution (Article I Section 8) was sufficient to allow them to waive states' sovereign immunity in bankruptcy cases.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Does the Bankruptcy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I Section 8), waive the states' sovereign immunity?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>04-885_20051031-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_885/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_885/argument/04-885_20051031-argument.mp3" length="14113463" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;South Carolina Maritime Services, Inc. (Maritime Services), asked the South Carolina State Ports Authority (SCSPA) five times for permission to berth a cruise ship, the M/V Tropic Sea, at the SCSPA's port facilities in Charleston, South Carolina. Some cruises offered by Maritime Services would allow passengers to participate in gambling activities while on board. The SCSPA repeatedly denied Maritime Services' requests, contending that it had an established policy of denying berths in the Port of Charleston to vessels whose primary purpose was gambling. Maritime Services file a complaint with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), arguing that SCSPA violated the Shipping Act by its denials. The complaint was referred to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who found that the SCSPA, as an arm of the State of South Carolina, was entitled to sovereign immunity and thus dismissed the complaint. Reversing on its own motion, the FMC concluded that state sovereign immunity covers proceedings before judicial tribunals, not Executive Branch agencies. In reversing, Court of Appeals fund that the proceedings were an adjudication and thus subject to state sovereign immunity.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Does a State's sovereign immunity preclude the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint that a state-run port has violated the Shipping Act of 1984?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>01-46_20020225-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_46/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_46/argument/01-46_20020225-argument.mp3" length="14622583" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2001 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires that incumbent local-exchange carriers (LECs) provide interconnection with their existing networks; that the carriers then establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for transporting and terminating the calls of each others' customers; and that their interconnection agreements be approved by a state utility commission. Verizon Maryland Inc., the incumbent LEC in Maryland, negotiated an interconnection agreement with MCI WorldCom, Inc. After the Maryland Public Service Commission approved the agreement, Verizon informed WorldCom that it would no longer pay reciprocal compensation for calls made by Verizon's customers to the local access numbers of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) because ISP traffic was not local traffic subject to the reciprocal compensation agreement. WorldCom filed a complaint with the Commission, which ordered Verizon to make the payments for past and future ISP-bound calls. Verizon then filed an action in federal district court, seeking an injunction prohibiting its enforcement, alleging that the determination that Verizon must pay reciprocal compensation for ISP traffic violated the Act. The District Court dismissed the action. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that the Commission had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and that the Act did not provide a basis for jurisdiction over Verizon's claims.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Do federal district courts have jurisdiction over a telecommunication carrier's claim that the order of a state utility commission requiring reciprocal compensation for telephone calls to Internet Service Providers violates the Telecommunications Act of 1996?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>00-1531_20011205-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1531/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1531/argument/00-1531_20011205-argument.mp3" length="12137292" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
 </channel>
</rss>
