Isiogu v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.
Consolidated with:
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10-329 | 6th Cir. |
Mar 30, 2011 Tr.Aud. |
Jun 9, 2011 | 8-0 | Thomas | OT 2010 |
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
Submit Event
