Orjiakor Isiogu, et al., Petitioner v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company Dba AT&T Michigan

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 10 Dec 2010

To promote competition for local telephone service, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act) requires incumbent telephone companies to make entrance facilities available to competitors (1) for network interconnection at cost-based rates, and (2) as unbundled network elements. In the Triennial Review Remand Order (TRRO), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) maintained the incumbent local telephone company's obligation to provide entrance facilities, which allow for interconnection, at cost- based rates, but found that competitors could effectively compete without access to entrance facilities as unbundled network elements. The questions presented are: I. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred by determining that the Act and TRRO permit incumbent local telephone companies to charge competing telephone companies competitive rates - which is more than cost-based rates - for entrance facilities used for interconnection, thereby creating a conflict with the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits. II. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred by disregarding the FCC's interpretation of its regulations, contrary to the deference standard established by this Court in Auer v. Robbins, thereby creating a conflict with the Ninth Circuit.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involves a dispute between Orjiakor Isiogu and others against Michigan Bell Telephone Company, doing business as AT&T Michigan. The petitioners challenged the company's practices under state law, alleging that they were unfairly charged for certain telecommunication services. The core issue was whether federal telecommunications law preempted state regulations that might otherwise apply to these charges. The Supreme Court had to consider if the Federal Communications Act's provisions superseded any conflicting state laws or regulatory decisions made by local authorities concerning billing practices and service terms in the telecommunications industry.

Opinion written by Justice Thomas

Decided 9 Jun 2011 · Official report

usrep564050.pdfOpen in a new tab