United States Eighth Circuit
Level 3 Communications, L.L.C. v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 06-1398, 06-1459
Only after a party seeking preemption shows that a local municipality has violated section 253(a) of the Telecommunication Act of 1996 by formally or effectively prohibiting entry into the telecommunications market, does the burden shift to the municipality to show that the regulation in question comes within the safe harbor provisions of section 253(c). In order to establish a violation of section 253(a), a party must show an actual or effective prohibition, rather than the mere possibility of a prohibition.
Appellate Information
- Decided 02/05/2007
- Published 02/05/2007
Judges
- BEAM, Circuit Judge., Before MELLOY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Court
- United States Eighth Circuit
Counsel
- For Appellant:
- Kenneth A. Brunetti, argued, San Francisco, CA (Patricia A. Hageman, Edward J. Hanlon and Daniel J. Emerson, City Attorney's Office, St.Louis, on the brief), for appellant., Lani L. Williams, Oconomowoc, WI, on behalf of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, International Municipal Lawyers Association and Local Government Lawyer's roundtable, in support of appellant City of St. Louis., Nancy K. Yendes, Springfield, MO, on behalf of the Missouri Chapter of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors in support of appellant City of St. Louis., Charles H. Carrathers III of Irving, TX and Andrew G. McBride and Megan L. Brown of Washington, DC, on behalf of Verizon Telephone companies and MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC d/b/a/ Verizon Access Transmission Services in Support of Level 3 Communications, LLC.
- For Appellees:
- Rex S. Heinke, argued, Los Angeles, CA (Michael C. Small, Los Angeles, CA; Anthony T. Pierce and Tobias E. Zimmerman, Washington, DC; and Andrew Rothschild, Thomas P. Berra and Theresa A. Phelps, St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for appellee., John F. Medler, Jr., St. Louis, MO, on behalf of Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., case Nos. 06-1398 and 06-1459, but in favor of cross-appellee City of St. Louis only on the issue of “discrimination” and to affirm in part the district court's decision.