Connection lost
Server error
MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP. v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exceeded its statutory authority by making tariff filing optional for non-dominant carriers, ruling that the power to “modify” a requirement does not permit fundamental changes to a statutory scheme.
Legal Significance: This case is a key limit on Chevron deference, establishing that an agency’s interpretation is not entitled to deference when it goes beyond the unambiguous, ordinary meaning of a statutory term, thereby reinforcing judicial authority at Chevron Step One.
MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP. v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Section 203(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 requires common carriers to file their rates (tariffs) with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Section 203(b) grants the FCC authority to “modify any requirement” of that section. In response to increasing competition in the long-distance telephone market, the FCC determined that the mandatory tariff-filing requirement was burdensome for new, “nondominant” carriers and hindered competition. The FCC issued a series of orders culminating in a policy of “permissive detariffing,” which made filing tariffs optional for all long-distance carriers except for the dominant carrier, AT&T. AT&T filed a complaint with the FCC, arguing that its competitor, MCI, was violating § 203(a) by not filing tariffs. The FCC dismissed the complaint, asserting its permissive detariffing policy was a valid exercise of its authority to “modify” the statute’s requirements. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that the policy exceeded the FCC’s statutory authority. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the scope of the FCC’s power to “modify” the Act’s requirements.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Federal Communications Commission’s authority under § 203(b) of the Communications Act to “modify any requirement” of the tariff-filing section empower it to make tariff filing optional for a substantial class of common carriers?
No. The FCC’s permissive detariffing policy is not a valid “modification” under Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat null
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Federal Communications Commission’s authority under § 203(b) of the Communications Act to “modify any requirement” of the tariff-filing section empower it to make tariff filing optional for a substantial class of common carriers?
Conclusion
This decision significantly cabins agency discretion by reinforcing a textualist approach to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volupt
Legal Rule
An administrative agency's authority to "modify" a statutory requirement is limited to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo conseq
Legal Analysis
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, employed a textualist approach Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis au
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The FCC exceeded its authority under the Communications Act by making