October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1531

Does federal law preempt state regulation of local ISP calls?

Verizon argues federal law controls local ISP calls. Maryland claims state law applies.

Official caption
Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Md.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Evans argued federal law requires these contracts.

    Miller noted the FCC found calls interstate.

    McDowell linked this case to standing issues.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Verizon seeks federal preemption. Maryland seeks state regulatory power.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 5, 2001.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Verizon wants federal law to control.

Maryland wants state law to apply.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Verizon argues federal statutes mandate these contracts.

Maryland argues the FCC order covers interstate calls.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Does federal law preempt state jurisdiction here?

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines state power over local internet services.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON