Isiogu v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.

Consolidated with:

• Talk America Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.

Holding: Because the FCC has advanced a reasonable interpretation of its regulations i.e., that to satisfy its duty under §251(c)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a carrier must make its existing entrance facilities available to competitors at cost-based rates if the facilities are to be used for interconnection, the Court will defer to the FCC's views. (Kagan, J., recused.)

Plain English Holding: The Federal Communications Commission can bar AT&T from charging market rates for access to the equipment its competitors need to access AT&T's network.

Judgment: Reversed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas on June 9, 2011. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion. (Kagan, J., recused.)

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Argument preview: Isiogu/Talk America v. Michigan Bell (Kevin Russell)
• Court grants 3 new cases (Lyle Denniston)
• Petition of the day (Conor McEvily)

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs

• Brief for Petitioners Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Monica Martinez, and Greg R. White, Commissioners of the Michigan Public Service Commission
• Brief for Respondent Michigan Bell Telephone Company
• Reply Brief for Petitioners

Amicus Briefs

• Brief for Comptel in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for the United States in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for Centurylink, Qwest Communications International, and Windstream Corporation in Support of  Respondent
• Brief for Verizon in Support of Respondent
• Brief for United States Telecom Association and Network Engineers in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Administrative Law Professors in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the California Public Utilities Commission in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Sprint Nextel Corporation in Support of Petitioner

Certiorari-stage documents

• Opinion below (6th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (unavailable)
• Brief in opposition (unavailable)
• Petitioners' reply (unavailable)