Qwest Corp. v. MN Public Utilities Comm., et al., No. 13-1267 (8th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Qwest appealed from the district court's order entered on remand from the court's decision in Qwest Corp. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 684 F3d 721 (8th Cir. 2012). In Qwest, the court held that the district court erred in upholding an order from the commission which asserted that the commission had authority under state law to regulate rates for certain telecommunication network elements that Qwest provided to its competitors voluntarily or as required under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 271. The court held in Qwest that the commission's order was preempted by its entirety and the court reversed the district court's original judgment with respect to both the elements Qwest provided pursuant to section 271. The court reversed the judgment of the district court again and remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the whole April 23, 2010 order of the commission as preempted by federal law and to enjoin the commission from enforcing the order in its entirety.

Court Description: Civil case - Telecommunications Act of 1996. For the court's prior opinion, see Qwest Corp. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 684 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 2012). On remand from this Court's first decision, the district court erred in finding the Commission's order was only partially preempted; the district court's order is reversed and the matter is remanded with directions to vacate the Commission's April 23, 2010 order in its entirely and to enjoin the Commission from enforcing the order. [ November 22, 2013

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1267 ___________________________ Qwest Corporation lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; David Boyd, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; J. Dennis O Brien, in his official capacity as a member of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; Thomas Pugh, in his official capacity as a member of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; Phyllis Reha, in her official capacity as a member of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; Betsy Wergin, in her official capacity as a member of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: November 20, 2013 Filed: November 25, 2013 ____________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MELLOY and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ RILEY, Chief Judge. Qwest Corporation appeals from the order and judgment the district court entered on January 7, 2013, on remand from our decision in Qwest Corp. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 684 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 2012). In Qwest, we held that the district court erred in upholding an April 23, 2010, order from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (commission). Id. at 722, 732. The commission s order had asserted it had authority under state law to regulate rates for certain telecommunication network elements that Qwest provided to its competitors voluntarily or as required by 47 U.S.C. § 271 a key part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act), Pub. L. No. 101 104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amended in scattered sections of Title 47 of the United States Code). Id. at 724-25, 732. We concluded the commission s order was preempted by the Act and the [Federal Communications Commission] s implementing regulations and rulings. Id. at 732. We reverse[d] the judgment of the district court, and remand[ed] to the district court to enter relief and judgment consistent with th[e] opinion. Id. On remand, the district court determined that in Qwest we held that the [c]ommission is preempted from regulating the rates of elements required by [§] 271, and did not reverse with regard to elements not required by [§] 271 but provided voluntarily. Concluding the commission s order should not be vacated in its entirety, the district court ordered that the commission s order was only preempted insofar as it regulates rates for elements required under [§] 271. That conclusion was in error. To clarify, we held in Qwest that the commission s order was preempted in its entirety, and we reversed the district court s original judgment with respect to both the elements Qwest provides pursuant to § 271 and those it provides voluntarily. Id. at 722, 732. We again reverse the judgment of the district court and remand to the -2- district court with instructions to vacate the whole April 23, 2010 order of the commission as preempted by federal law and to enjoin the commission from enforcing the order in its entirety. ______________________________ -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.