The U.S. Supreme Court case Talk America, Petitioner v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company DBA AT&T Michigan in 2010 revolved around the interpretation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The dispute was about whether incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), like AT&T, were required to allow competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), such as Talk America, access to their existing phone lines at regulated rates for providing broadband services to customers. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had previously ruled that ILECs must provide this access under certain sections of the act but AT&T argued against it and won in a lower court ruling. However, upon appeal by Talk America, the Supreme Court reversed this decision unanimously stating that deference should be given to FCC's interpretation of its own regulations unless they are unreasonable or inconsistent with statutory language.

In the dissenting opinion for Talk America v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's interpretation of the Telecommunications Act was incorrect. He believed that AT&T should not be required to lease its network elements to competing carriers at cost-based rates because this requirement would discourage competition and innovation in the telecommunications industry. According to him, such a mandate would essentially turn private companies into public utilities and stifle their incentive to invest in new technologies or improve their services. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's reliance on Chevron deference - a legal principle which states that courts should defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes unless they are unreasonable - arguing instead for an interpretation based on plain language reading of statute law.