Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.
| Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 30, 2011 Decided June 9, 2011 | |
| Full case name | Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. DBA AT&T Michigan |
| Docket no. | 10-313 |
| Citations | 564 U.S. 50 (more) 131 S. Ct. 2254; 180 L. Ed. 2d 96 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Michigan Public Service Commission decision reversed sub nom. Mich. Bell Tel. Co. v. Lark, 2007 WL 2868633 (E.D. Mich. 2007); affirmed sub nom. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Covad Communications Co., 597 F.3d 370 (6th Cir. 2010); cert. granted, 562 U.S. 1104 (2010). |
| Holding | |
| The Federal Communications Commission had advanced a reasonable interpretation of its regulations in a dispute with AT&T. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor |
| Concurrence | Scalia |
| Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 564 U.S. 50 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had advanced a reasonable interpretation of its regulations in a dispute with AT&T.[1]
See also
References
- ^ Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. Syllabus p. 2 "Held: The FCC has advanced a reasonable interpretation of its regulations—i.e., that to satisfy its duty under §251(c)(2), an incumbent LEC must make its existing entrance facilities available to competitors at cost-based rates if the facilities are to be used for interconnection—and this Court defers to the FCC's views."
External links
- Text of Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 564 U.S. 50 (2011) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)