Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland
E496717
Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed federal court jurisdiction and state sovereign immunity in disputes over telecommunications regulation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland canonical | 1 |
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
federal court case ⓘ telecommunications law case ⓘ |
| citation | 535 U.S. 635 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Clarence Thomas
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInvolved | Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2002-05-20 ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 00-1531 ⓘ |
| fullName | Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| geographicScope | State of Maryland NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
Federal district courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review claims that a state commission order violates federal law, including the Telecommunications Act of 1996
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Section 252(e)(6) of the Telecommunications Act does not divest federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ⓘ The Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit for prospective injunctive relief against state officials alleged to be acting in violation of federal law under Ex parte Young ⓘ |
| importance |
leading case on federal jurisdiction over state commission decisions under the Telecommunications Act of 1996
ⓘ
significant precedent on the application of Ex parte Young to telecommunications regulation disputes ⓘ |
| industryContext | telecommunications industry ⓘ |
| issue |
whether federal district courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review state commission orders alleged to violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996
ⓘ
whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a suit against state commissioners for prospective injunctive relief ⓘ |
| jurisdictionQuestion | scope of federal district court review of state public utility commission decisions under federal law ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Ex parte Young doctrine
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Telecommunications Act of 1996 NERFINISHED ⓘ federal jurisdiction ⓘ federal–state relations in telecommunications regulation ⓘ state sovereign immunity ⓘ |
| lowerCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| lowerCourtDisposition | dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and on Eleventh Amendment grounds ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| opinionType | unanimous opinion in part ⓘ |
| page | 635 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Verizon Maryland Inc. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedAreaOfLaw |
administrative law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ federal courts ⓘ telecommunications regulation ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine | Ex parte Young NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent |
Commissioners of the Public Service Commission of Maryland
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Public Service Commission of Maryland NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| result | Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed ⓘ |
| shortName | Verizon Maryland NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted |
28 U.S.C. § 1331
ⓘ
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 252 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | interconnection agreement disputes between incumbent local exchange carrier and competitive local exchange carrier ⓘ |
| volume | 535 ⓘ |
| vote | 9-0 on jurisdiction and sovereign immunity issues ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 2002 ⓘ |
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.