__ U.S. __, 18-1386, Lipschultz v. Charter Advanced Services (MN), LLC
|Citation:||__ U.S. __, 140 S.Ct. 6|
|Party Name:||Dan M. LIPSCHULTZ, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, et al. v. CHARTER ADVANCED SERVICES (MN), LLC, et al.|
|Judge Panel:||Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice GORSUCH joins, concurring in the denial of certiorari.|
|Case Date:||October 21, 2019|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice GORSUCH joins, concurring in the denial of certiorari.
[140 S.Ct. 7] Charter Advanced Services provides Voice over Internet Protocol services, which allow users to place voice calls over an Internet connection. After the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission attempted to regulate Charters provision of these services, Charter brought suit in federal court, arguing that the state regulation was pre-empted. The District Court granted summary judgment to Charter. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the Federal Communications Commissions "policy of nonregulation" of these services pre-empted state law. Charter Advanced Servs. (MN), LLC v. Lange, 903 F.3d 715, 718 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
I agree with the Courts determination that this case does not satisfy our criteria for certiorari. I write to explain why, in an appropriate case, we should consider whether a federal agencys policy can pre-empt state law.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Art. VI, cl. 2.
The Clause contains a non obstante provision, a common device used by 18th-century legislatures to signal the implied repeal of conflicting statutes. See PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604, 621, 131 S.Ct. 2567, 180 L.Ed.2d 580 (2011); see also Nelson...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP