October Term 2010 · Docket 10-313

Must incumbents build new lines for competitors?

Competitors demand new physical connections. Incumbents refuse to build them.

Official caption
Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.
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.
  2. — 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

    Bursch argued interconnection drives local competition.

    Miller focused on specific FCC regulations.

    Angstreich claimed the agency created new rules.

    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

Talk America wants new phone lines. Michigan Bell refuses to build them.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 30, 2011.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Talk America wants new physical lines built.

Michigan Bell wants to avoid building new lines.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Talk America argues Congress mandates new connections.

Michigan Bell argues the FCC lacks authority.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked about building orange cords.

Justice Kennedy asked about multiple competitor requests.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines local phone competition rules. It determines who pays for new infrastructure.

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