Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Talk Am., Inc. v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co. - 564 U.S. 50, 131 S. Ct. 2254 (2011)

Rule:

In the absence of any unambiguous statute or regulation, a court turns to an agency's interpretation of its regulations. The court defers to an agency's interpretation of its regulations, even in a legal brief, unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations or there is any other reason to suspect that the interpretation does not reflect the agency's fair and considered judgment on the matter in question.

Facts:

Following a determination by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) need not provide competitive LECs with cost-based unbundled access to entrance facilities under § 251(c)(3), the incumbent provider announced that it would charge higher rates for access to entrance facilities for interconnection. The FCC, as amicus, interpreted its regulations, including 47 C.F.R. § 51.321, as requiring the incumbent provider to provide access at cost-based rates to its existing entrance facilities for the purpose of interconnection. The incumbent telephone service provider challenged the FCC’s order. The district court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of the incumbent provider. A writ of certiorari was granted. 

Issue:

Did the FCC unreasonably interpreted the regulations, thereby justifying the decision In favor of the incumbent provider? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court found that the FCC's interpretation of its regulations was neither plainly erroneous nor inconsistent with the regulatory text. Under § 51.321(a), the FCC construed § 251(c)(2) to require incumbent LECs to provide, at cost-based rates, any technically feasible method of obtaining interconnection at a particular point, which encompassed a duty to lease an existing facility to a competing LEC. The FCC's elimination of the obligation under § 251(c)(3) to provide unbundled access to entrance facilities did not alter the obligation under § 251(c)(2) to provide facilities for interconnection purposes.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates