CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO. OF VA. v. U.S.

Nos. 93-2340, 93-2341.

42 F.3d 181 (1994)

The CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA; Bell Atlantic Video Services Company; Bell Atlantic Corporation; Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company; C & P Telephone Company of Maryland; the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of West Virginia; the Diamond State Telephone Company; the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania; New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America; Federal Communications Commission; Janet Reno, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendants-Appellants, and The National Cable Television Association, Incorporated, Defendant. Consumer Federation of America; Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; Newspaper Association of America; Virginia Press Association; Computer & Communications Industry Association; Mets Fans United/Virginia Consumers for Cable Choice, et al.; Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation; the American Legislative Exchange Council; the Competitive Enterprise Institute; the United States Telephone Association; Ameritech Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; GTE Service Corporation, on behalf of its affiliated domestic operating companies; NYNEX Corporation; Pacific Telesis Group; Rochester Telephone Corporation; Southwestern Bell Corporation; US West Incorporated; Telecommunications Industry Association, Fiber Optics Division, Amici Curiae. The CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA; Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bell Atlantic Video Services Company; Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company; the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland; the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of West Virginia; the Diamond State Telephone Company; the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania; New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant, and United States of America; Federal Communications Commission; Janet Reno, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendants. Consumer Federation of America; Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; Newspaper Association of America; Virginia Press Association; Computer & Communications Industry Association; Mets Fans United/Virginia Consumers for Cable Choice, et al.; Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation; the American Legislative Exchange Council; the Competitive Enterprise Institute; the United States Telephone Association; Ameritech Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; GTE Service Corporation, on behalf of its affiliated domestic operating companies; NYNEX Corporation; Pacific Telesis Group; Rochester Telephone Corporation; Southwestern Bell Corporation; US West Incorporated; Telecommunications Industry Association, Fiber Optics Division, Amici Curiae.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided November 21, 1994.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

ARGUED: Bruce G. Forrest, Civil Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for governmental appellants; H. Bartow Farr, III, Klein, Farr, Smith & Taranto, Washington, DC, for appellant Cable Television Ass'n. Laurence H. Tribe, Cambridge, MA, for appellees. ON BRIEF: Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Douglas N. Letter, James J. Gilligan, Civil Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC; Renee Light, Acting Gen. Counsel, Daniel M. Armstrong, Laurence N. Bourne, Sara F. Seidman, Office of Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., Washington, DC, for governmental appellants; Richard G. Taranto, Klein, Farr, Smith & Taranto, Washington, DC; Daniel L. Brenner, David L. Nicoll, National Cable Television Ass'n, Inc., for appellant Cable Television Ass'n. Jonathan S. Massey, Cambridge, MA; James R. Young, John Thorne, Michael E. Glover, Warener F. Brundage, Jr., Washington, DC; Robert A. Levetown, Arlington, VA; Paul T. Cappuccio, Jay P. Lefkowitz, Alex M. Azar, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC; Wiley R. Wright, Jr., Ronald L. Lord, Hazel & Thomas, P.C., Alexandria, VA, for appellees. Richard E. Wiley, Michael Yourshaw, William B. Baker, Daniel E. Troy, Frank Winston, Jr., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Washington, DC; John F. Sturm, Newspaper Ass'n of America, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Newspaper Ass'n of America and Virginia Press Ass'n. Bradley Stillman, Washington, DC; Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Media Access Project, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Consumer Federation of America and Virginia Citizens Consumer Council. John Haven Chapman, Brian E. Moran, Chapman, Moran, Hubbard, Glazer & Zimmerman, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Computer & Communications Industry Ass'n. Henry M. Rivera, Alan S. Weitz, Rodney L. Joyce, Ginsburg, Feldman & Bress, Chartered, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Mets Fans United/Virginia Consumers for Cable Choice, et al. Koteles Alexander, Jonathan W. Emord, Alexander, Gebhardt, Aponte & Marks, Silver Spring, MD; James L. Gattuso, Michele A. Isele, Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation; Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, et al. Michael W. McConnell, Alan E. Untereiner, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Washington, DC; Walter H. Alford, William B. Barfield, Atlanta, GA; Martin T. McCue, Washington, DC; Thomas P. Hester, Thomas Quarles, Chicago, IL, for amici curiae U.S. Telephone Ass'n, et al. James R. Hobson, Jeffrey O. Moreno, Michael G. Kane, Donelan, Cleary, Wood & Maser, P.C., Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Telecommunications Industry Ass'n.

Before RUSSELL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and TILLEY, United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.


Affirmed by published opinion. Judge RUSSELL wrote the opinion, in which Judge TILLEY joined. Judge MICHAEL wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

OPINION

DONALD RUSSELL, Circuit Judge:

At issue in this case is the constitutionality of 47 U.S.C. § 533(b), which provides, in pertinent part:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier, subject in...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases