Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League
158 L. Ed. 2d 291, 541 U.S. 125, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 2377 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 253(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which preempts state laws that prohibit 'any entity' from providing telecommunications services, does not apply to a state's prohibitions on its own political subdivisions because the term 'any entity' does not provide a sufficiently clear statement of congressional intent to interfere with a state's traditional authority over its own government structure.
Facts:
- Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to promote competition in local telecommunications markets.
- Section 253(a) of the Act states that 'No State or local statute... may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any... telecommunications service.'
- In 1997, the Missouri General Assembly enacted a statute, §392.410(7), which expressly prohibited any 'political subdivision of this state' from providing telecommunications services or facilities.
- Several Missouri municipalities and municipally-owned utilities, which are political subdivisions of the state, desired to provide telecommunications services to the public.
- The Missouri statute directly prevented these municipal entities from entering the telecommunications market.
Procedural Posture:
- The Missouri Municipal League and other municipal entities petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to declare the Missouri statute unlawful and preempted by 47 U.S.C. § 253.
- The FCC denied the petition, concluding that 'any entity' in § 253(a) was not intended to include political subdivisions of a state.
- The municipal entities (respondents in the Supreme Court) appealed the FCC's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed the FCC's order, holding that the plain language of 'any entity' was sufficiently clear to include governmental entities and thus preempt the Missouri statute.
- The Director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development and the FCC (petitioners in the Supreme Court) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to resolve a conflict with a D.C. Circuit decision.
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 Section 253(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which prohibits state laws from barring 'any entity' from providing telecommunications services, preempt a state law that prevents its own political subdivisions from offering such services?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
No, Section 253(a) does not preempt a state law that prevents its own political subdivisions from offering telecommunications services. The term 'any entity' is not a sufficiently clear statement of congressional intent to interfere with the traditional relationship between a state and its political subdivisions. Applying preemption in this context would lead to bizarre and impractical results, as it would interfere with a state's authority to structure and empower its own governmental units. For instance, preempting a ban would not affirmatively grant a municipality the authority or funding to enter the market, leading to a 'crazy quilt' of outcomes based on variations in state law. It would also create a 'one-way ratchet' where a state could authorize municipal entry but never reverse that decision, as any attempt to withdraw authority would be preempted as a 'prohibition.' Citing Gregory v. Ashcroft, the Court held that federal legislation that threatens to alter the state-local government relationship must contain an 'unmistakably clear' statement of intent, which the ambiguous phrase 'any entity' fails to provide.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
I concur in the judgment. The decision should rest solely on the principle established in Gregory v. Ashcroft. Section 253(a) does not provide the requisite 'unmistakably clear' statement that Congress intended to limit the power of states to control the activities of their own political subdivisions. The majority's analysis of the 'unhappy consequences' of a contrary reading is unnecessary; the lack of a clear statement is dispositive.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, Section 253(a) should preempt the Missouri law. The plain meaning of 'any entity' includes municipally-owned utilities, and Congress was aware of their existence and potential to foster competition when it passed the Act. The majority's fears of 'absurd results' are unfounded, as the statute can be reasonably interpreted to prohibit states only from withdrawing a municipality's preexisting authority to enter the market, not to command states to grant new authority or funding. The statute is specifically aimed at preventing anticompetitive state laws that target telecommunications providers, like Missouri's statute. Reading the statute to preempt such targeted prohibitions would be perfectly consistent with the Act's pro-competitive goals without unduly interfering with general state authority.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the principle of federalism articulated in Gregory v. Ashcroft, establishing a high bar for federal preemption of state laws governing the state's own political subdivisions. It creates a strong presumption that general statutory terms like 'any entity' do not include governmental bodies when the issue involves core state functions, such as structuring and delegating power to local governments. This holding protects state sovereignty by requiring Congress to legislate with extreme clarity if it intends to interfere with the internal allocation of power within a state. Consequently, it makes it more difficult to use broad federal statutes to challenge state-level decisions about whether public entities can participate in certain commercial markets.
