Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland et al.
535 U.S. 635 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over a claim that a state commission's order is pre-empted by federal law. The doctrine of Ex parte Young allows such a suit to proceed against state commissioners for prospective relief, notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment.
Facts:
- As required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Verizon Maryland Inc. (Verizon), an incumbent local exchange carrier, entered into an interconnection agreement with MFS Intelenet, which was later acquired by MCI WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom).
- The agreement, approved by the Maryland Public Service Commission (Commission), stipulated that the parties would pay each other 'reciprocal compensation' for terminating 'local traffic' originating on each other's networks.
- About six months after the agreement's approval, Verizon informed WorldCom it would no longer pay reciprocal compensation for calls made by Verizon customers to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that were WorldCom customers.
- Verizon asserted that calls to ISPs did not constitute 'local traffic' under the agreement because ISPs connect customers to geographically distant Web sites.
- WorldCom disputed Verizon's unilateral decision to cease payments.
- Subsequently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a ruling stating that ISP-bound calls were nonlocal but that, in the interim, state commissions could interpret existing interconnection agreements as requiring reciprocal compensation.
- Relying on the FCC ruling, Verizon again argued to the Commission that it was not obligated to pay for ISP-bound traffic.
Procedural Posture:
- After Verizon ceased payments, WorldCom filed a complaint with the Maryland Public Service Commission (Commission).
- The Commission ruled in favor of WorldCom, ordering Verizon to make all past-due and future payments.
- Verizon appealed this initial order to a Maryland state court, which affirmed the Commission's decision.
- After a new FCC ruling was issued, Verizon filed another complaint with the Commission, which again ruled against Verizon, finding that under state contract law, the agreement required the payments.
- Verizon then filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the Commission, its individual commissioners, and WorldCom.
- The District Court dismissed the action, finding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Verizon appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fourth Circuit's 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 a federal district court have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review a state utility commission's order interpreting a telecommunications interconnection agreement, and does the doctrine of Ex parte Young permit such a suit against the commissioners to overcome an Eleventh Amendment defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes. A federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to adjudicate claims that a state commission's order is preempted by federal law, and the doctrine of Ex parte Young permits such a suit to proceed against individual state commissioners for prospective relief. Verizon's claim that the Commission's order violates the 1996 Telecommunications Act arises under federal law and thus presents a federal question, granting jurisdiction under § 1331. The Act's specific judicial review provision, § 252(e)(6), does not explicitly or implicitly strip this general jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the suit against the individual commissioners because Verizon alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks prospective injunctive and declaratory relief, which falls squarely within the Ex parte Young doctrine. The inquiry under Ex parte Young is a straightforward assessment of the complaint's allegations and requested relief, not an analysis of the merits of the underlying claim.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes. I agree that Verizon may proceed against the state commissioners under the doctrine of Ex parte Young. This case presents a classic application of the doctrine, where a plaintiff seeks to enjoin a state utility commissioner from enforcing an order alleged to violate federal law. This contrasts with more complex cases, such as Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, where the relief sought would have effectively divested a state of its core sovereignty over territory. Our jurisprudence requires a careful balancing of state sovereign interests and the supremacy of federal law, and the complaint in this litigation fits perfectly within the long-established precedent of Ex parte Young itself.
Concurring - Justice Souter
Yes. While I join the Court's opinion, I write to question whether the Eleventh Amendment is even implicated in this case. When a state commission exercises authority delegated by Congress to adjudicate questions of federal law, as the Maryland Commission did here under the Telecommunications Act, a federal court's review of that decision is more akin to appellate review of a federal agency's action than a suit against a sovereign state. In this context, the state is merely a nominal party, and the process does not offend the state's dignity or sovereignty. Therefore, the elaborate Ex parte Young analysis, while correctly applied by the majority, may not have been necessary because the Eleventh Amendment likely does not apply in the first instance.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the broad scope of federal-question jurisdiction and the enduring viability of the Ex parte Young doctrine as a tool for ensuring state compliance with federal law. It clarifies that a specific statutory review mechanism, like that in the Telecommunications Act, will not be read to displace general federal jurisdiction unless Congress's intent to do so is clear. The ruling solidifies a critical pathway for regulated entities to challenge state administrative actions in federal court, preventing states from interpreting federal statutory schemes in ways that might conflict with federal law. By distinguishing the straightforward application of Ex parte Young here from the more limited remedial scheme in Seminole Tribe, the Court preserved an essential check on state authority in areas of cooperative federalism.
Unlock the full brief for Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland et al.