Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League
541 U.S. 125 (2004)

Annotate this Case

541 U. S. ____ (2004)
NIXON V. MISSOURI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
541 U. S. ____ (2004)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NOS. 02-1238, 02-1386, AND 02-1405

JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, PETITIONER

02–1238   v.

MISSOURI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE et al.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES, PETITIONERS

02–1386   v.

MISSOURI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE et al.

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, L. P., fka SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, PETITIONER

02–1405   v.

MISSOURI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE et al.

on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit

[March 24, 2004]

   Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring in the judgment.

   I agree with much of the Court’s analysis in Parts II and III of its opinion, which demonstrates that reading “any entity” in 47 U. S. C. §253(a) to include political subdivisions of States would have several unhappy consequences. I do not think, however, that the avoidance of unhappy consequences is adequate basis for interpreting a text. Cf. ante, at 13 (“The municipal respondents’ position holds sufficient promise of futility and uncertainty to keep us from accepting it”). I would instead reverse the Court of Appeals on the ground discussed in Part IV of the Court’s opinion: Section 253(a) simply does not provide the clear statement which would be required by Gregory v. Ashcroft,501 U. S. 452 (1991), for a statute to limit the power of States to restrict the delivery of telecommunications services by their political subdivisions.

   I would not address the additional question whether the statute affects the “power of . . . localities to restrict their own (or their political inferiors’) delivery” of telecommunications services, ante, at 2 (emphasis added), an issue considered and apparently answered negatively by the Court. That question is neither presented by this litigation nor contained within the question on which we granted certiorari.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.