Isiogu 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 Clarence Thomas on Jun 9, 2011. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion. (Kagan, J., recused.)
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
[##CERT-STAGE##]
Recommended Citation: Isiogu v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/isiogu-v-michigan-bell-telephone-co/