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
Petitioners were represented by Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General of Illinois; Respondent United States was represented by Barbara B. McDowell; and WorldCom Technologies and related companies were represented by Paul M. Smith.
According to Petitioners (Joel D. Bertocchi), the Telecommunications Act of 1996 created competition in local telephone markets through sections 251 and 252, which impose interconnection obligations on incumbent carriers and set procedures for negotiating those agreements.
According to Paul M. Smith, respondents contend that the Interstate Commerce Commission misinterpreted interconnection agreements and that its order requiring reciprocal compensation violated the Telecommunications Act and applicable FCC rulings.
The case was formally submitted to the Court.
Background and question before the Court
Justice asked a preliminary procedural question, seeking a conclusive answer about a procedural matter.
According to Justice, justice questioned whether the interpretation of a contract could be separated from a violation of federal law.
Justice asked whether the state retains control over contract interpretation when the contract is governed by state law.
According to Justice, justice inquired whether district judges are parties to an appeal from their decisions.
According to Ms. McDowell, justice asked whether the FCC’s role in place of a state commission makes its decisions reviewable in federal court under the Hobbs Act.
What each side argues
Petitioners
According to Petitioners (Joel D. Bertocchi), petitioners rely on sections 251 and 252 of the Telecommunications Act, which impose interconnection duties on incumbent carriers and set procedures for negotiating those duties.
According to Petitioners (Mr. Bertocchi), petitioners argue that Ex parte Young does not apply because the statute does not permit suing state commissioners in federal court; e(6) does not reference state commissioners.
According to Petitioners (Mr. Bertocchi), petitioners describe the Illinois Commerce Commission proceeding as a quasi‑judicial proceeding, not a legislative or executive action.
According to Petitioners (Mr. Bertocchi), petitioners contend that the contract at issue violates the Telecommunications Act and that jurisdiction cannot be limited to violations of federal law alone.
Respondents
According to Paul M. Smith, respondents allege that the Interstate Commerce Commission misinterpreted the interconnection agreements and that its order requiring reciprocal compensation violated the Telecommunications Act and applicable FCC rulings.
According to Ms. McDowell, respondents argue that the FCC’s decisions are reviewable in federal appellate courts under the Hobbs Act, and that the FCC can be named as a party in such proceedings.
What happened at oral argument
According to Paul M. Smith, paul M. Smith presented oral argument on behalf of the respondents, outlining the complaint that the ICC misinterpreted interconnection agreements and violated the Telecommunications Act and FCC rulings.
According to Petitioners (Mr. Bertocchi), petitioners, through Mr. Bertocchi, responded to Justice Souter’s questions, arguing that Ex parte Young does not apply and characterizing the commission proceeding as quasi‑judicial.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
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.
- 09af1598258a1b248338-r1-d5a4950198d9dfe4.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.