Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Public Service Commission Of Maryland v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company Of Maryland

• 1985 • 476 U.S. 445 • Burger Court
In the case of Public Service Commission of Maryland v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland, 1985, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company. The court held that a state regulation requiring telephone companies to obtain approval before discontinuing or changing any service was preempted by federal law under the Federal Communications Act (FCA). The FCA gave exclusive jurisdiction over interstate communication services to the Federal...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1985
Docket: 84-1362
476 U.S. 445
106 S. Ct. 2239
90 L. Ed. 2d 444
1986 U.S. LEXIS 78
Argued: Jan 13, 1986

Public Service Commission Of Maryland v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company Of Maryland

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Public Service Commission of Maryland v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland, 1985, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company. The court held that a state regulation requiring telephone companies to obtain approval before discontinuing or changing any service was preempted by federal law under the Federal Communications Act (FCA). The FCA gave exclusive jurisdiction over interstate communication services to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), thereby preventing states from imposing their own regulations on these services. In this case, since it involved an aspect of interstate communications - specifically changes to customer premises equipment and inside wiring which were part and parcel with overall provision for telecommunications - it fell within FCC's purview rather than being subject to individual state laws or regulations.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Public Service Commission of Maryland v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's view that a state utility commission's order requiring a telephone company to provide free access to its directory assistance records violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He argued that this was not an issue of compelled speech but rather one concerning economic regulation. The phone company, in his view, did not have any expressive interest in withholding information from customers about their own listings or those of other subscribers. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were some minimal burden on expression here, it would be justified by substantial state interests in consumer protection and efficient use of communication services. Thus, Justice Brennan concluded that the order should have been upheld as constitutional.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: May 27, 1986
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms