Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.
575 U.S. ___ (2015)
Annotate this Case
- Syllabus
- Opinion (Stephen G. Breyer)
- Concurrence (Clarence Thomas)
- Dissent (Antonin Scalia)
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 .
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
ONEOK, INC., et al. v. LEARJET, INC., et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 13–271. Argued January 12, 2015—Decided April 21, 2015
Respondents, a group of manufacturers, hospitals, and other institutions that buy natural gas directly from interstate pipelines, sued petitioner interstate pipelines, claiming that the pipelines had engaged in behavior that violated state antitrust laws. In particular, respondents alleged that petitioners reported false information to the natural-gas indices on which respondents’ natural-gas contracts were based. The indices affected not only retail natural-gas prices, but also wholesale natural-gas prices.
After removing the cases to federal court, the petitioner pipelines sought summary judgment on the ground that the Natural Gas Act pre-empted respondents’ state-law claims. That Act gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to determine whether rates charged by natural-gas companies or practices affecting such rates are unreasonable. 15 U. S. C. §717d(a). But it also limits FERC’s jurisdiction to the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, the sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for resale, and natural-gas companies engaged in such transportation or sale. §717(b). The Act leaves regulation of other portions of the industry—such as retail sales—to the States. Ibid.
The District Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment, reasoning that because petitioners’ challenged practices directly affected wholesale as well as retail prices, they were pre-empted by the Act. The Ninth Circuit reversed. While acknowledging that the pipelines’ index manipulation increased wholesale prices as well as retail prices, it held that the state-law claims were not pre-empted because they were aimed at obtaining damages only for excessively high retail prices.
Held: Respondents’ state-law antitrust claims are not within the field of matters pre-empted by the Natural Gas Act. Pp. 10–16.
(a) The Act “was drawn with meticulous regard for the continued exercise of state power.” Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Ind., 332 U. S. 507 –518. Where, as here, a practice affects nonjurisdictional as well as jurisdictional sales, pre-emption can be found only where a detailed examination convincingly demonstrates that a matter falls within the pre-empted field as defined by this Court’s precedents. Those precedents emphasize the importance of considering the target at which the state-law claims aim. See, e.g., Northern Natural Gas Co. v. State Corporation Comm’n of Kan., 372 U. S. 84 ; Northwest Central Pipeline Corp. v. State Corporation Comm’n of Kan., 489 U. S. 493 . Here, respondents’ claims are aimed at practices affecting retail prices, a matter “firmly on the States’ side of [the] dividing line.” Id., at 514.
Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U. S. 293 , is not to the contrary. That opinion explains that the Act does not pre-empt “traditional” state regulation, such as blue sky laws. Id., at 308, n. 11. Antitrust laws, like blue sky laws, are not aimed at natural-gas companies in particular, but rather all businesses in the marketplace. The broad applicability of state antitrust laws supports a finding of no pre-emption here.
So, too, does the fact that States have long provided “common-law and statutory remedies against monopolies and unfair business practices,” California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U. S. 93 . As noted earlier, the Act circumscribes FERC’s powers and preserves traditional areas of state authority. §717(b). Pp. 10–14.
(b) Neither Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U. S. 354 , nor FPC v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 406 U. S. 621 , supports petitioners’ position. Mississippi Power is best read as a conflict pre-emption case, not a field pre-emption case. In any event, the state inquiry in Mississippi Power was pre-empted because it was directed at jurisdictional sales in a way that respondents’ state antitrust suits are not. Louisiana Power is also a conflict pre-emption case, and thus does not significantly help petitioners’ field pre-emption argument. Pp. 14–15.
(c) Because the parties have not argued conflict pre-emption, questions involving conflicts between state antitrust proceedings and the federal rate-setting process are left for the lower courts to resolve in the first instance. Pp. 15–16.
(d) While petitioners and the Government argue that this Court should defer to FERC’s determination that field pre-emption bars respondents’ claims, they fail to point to a specific FERC determination that state antitrust claims fall within the field pre-empted by the Natural Gas Act. Thus, this Court need not consider what legal effect such a determination might have. P. 16.
715 F. 3d 716, affirmed.
Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part I–A. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., joined.
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.
