2001 Supreme Court term

VERIZON MARYLAND INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, ET AL.

Dockets 00-1531Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

According to Verizon Maryland Inc., according to Verizon Maryland Inc., the dispute involved whether certain contracts are pervasive and federal, and whether the statute requires parties to enter into those relationships.

According to United States, the Court granted certiorari only on the question of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

The Fourth Circuit dismissed the §1331 claim on three alternative grounds.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case.

Background and question before the Court

The Fourth Circuit dismissed the §1331 claim on three alternative grounds.

According to United States, the Supreme Court granted certiorari only to consider jurisdiction under §1331.

According to Justice Scalia, a central question was whether challenges to negotiated agreements fall within federal jurisdiction, while challenges to arbitrated agreements do not.

What each side argues

Verizon Maryland Inc.

According to Verizon Maryland Inc., verizon takes the position that the contracts at issue are pervasive and federal, and that the statute requires the parties to enter into those relationships.

United States

The United States argues that the Court’s review is limited to the jurisdictional question under §1331.

What happened at oral argument

Oral argument before the Supreme Court began at 11:01 a.m.

According to Justice (unspecified), a Justice asked whether the system assumes a utility‑regulation framework that does not exist.

According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned whether challenges to negotiated agreements can go to federal court, while challenges to arbitrated agreements can.

According to Ms. Miller, ms. Miller testified that Verizon had agreed to a reciprocal compensation rate higher than the commission’s arbitrated rate.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

The United States argued that the Court’s review is limited to the jurisdictional question under §1331.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • f79966bea4894b9e616b-r1-614304228dbf3b9c.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.