MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. AT&T Co.

United States Supreme Court
512 U.S. 218 (1994)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An administrative agency's statutory authority to "modify" a requirement is limited to making moderate or incremental changes and does not permit the agency to make fundamental revisions to the core statutory scheme.

Facts:

The Communications Act of 1934 required communications common carriers to file schedules of their rates, or tariffs, with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
For decades, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) held a virtual monopoly over the nation's telephone service.
In the 1970s, technological advances lowered entry barriers, allowing new competitors, including MCI Telecommunications Corp., to enter the long-distance market.
In response to growing competition, the FCC initiated a policy of deregulation, distinguishing between 'dominant' carriers (AT&T) and 'nondominant' carriers (all others).
Through a series of orders, the FCC established a 'permissive detariffing' policy, which made the tariff-filing requirement optional for all nondominant carriers.
Under this policy, MCI, a nondominant carrier, chose not to file tariffs for some of its services.

Procedural Posture:

AT&T filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against MCI, arguing MCI's failure to file tariffs violated the Communications Act.
The FCC, acting as the administrative tribunal, dismissed AT&T's complaint, reaffirming its 'permissive detariffing' policy which made such filings optional for MCI.
AT&T, as petitioner, sought review of the FCC's decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) granted the petition for review, ruling that the FCC's policy exceeded its statutory authority to 'modify' the Act, and remanded the case.
In a separate rulemaking proceeding, the FCC again concluded that its permissive detariffing policy was a lawful exercise of its authority.
AT&T again sought review, and the Court of Appeals summarily reversed the FCC's order.
The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court, granted certiorari at the request of MCI and the United States (representing the FCC).

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) statutory authority under § 203(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 to 'modify any requirement' of the tariff-filing section permit the FCC to make tariff filing optional for all nondominant long-distance carriers?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Scalia

No. The FCC's authority to 'modify' a statutory requirement does not permit it to make a fundamental change to the regulatory scheme. The plain meaning of the word 'modify' connotes a moderate, incremental, or minor change, not a radical or fundamental transformation. Consulting dictionaries from 1934, when the Act was passed, and contemporary sources confirms this narrow meaning; a single outlier dictionary definition suggesting a broader meaning is insufficient to create statutory ambiguity warranting agency deference. The tariff-filing requirement is the 'heart' of the Communications Act's common-carrier regulatory scheme, designed to ensure rates are reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Exempting 40% of the market from this core provision is too extensive to be considered a mere 'modification.' Furthermore, the FCC's general order applies to nearly all carriers, which is not a 'special circumstance' as required by the statute. Policy arguments that deregulation is more efficient are matters for Congress, not the agency or the courts, to decide.

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

Yes. The FCC's permissive detariffing policy is a valid exercise of its authority to 'modify' the Act's requirements. The Communications Act was intended to give the FCC broad and flexible authority to regulate a dynamic industry. The majority's rigid, literalist interpretation defeats this purpose. The core of the Act is ensuring reasonable rates, not the procedural act of filing tariffs itself, which is merely a means to that end. The emergence of a competitive market is precisely the kind of 'special circumstance' that warrants adapting a regulatory scheme designed for a monopoly. The term 'modify' can also mean 'to limit or reduce in extent,' which accurately describes the FCC's action. The court should defer under Chevron to the agency's reasonable, well-explained judgment that mandatory filing is counterproductive for carriers who lack market power.

Analysis:

This case is a landmark decision in administrative law that significantly limits the scope of agency deference under the Chevron doctrine. It establishes that an agency cannot create statutory ambiguity by relying on an outlier dictionary definition to justify an expansive interpretation of its authority. By adopting a textualist approach, the Court signaled that an agency's power to 'modify' a statute is constrained to minor adjustments and does not permit it to fundamentally alter a congressional scheme, even for laudable policy reasons. This holding reinforces the separation of powers by requiring that major policy shifts, like moving from a regulated to a market-based system, must come from Congress, not the implementing agency.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. AT&T Co. (1994)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature