Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
VONAGE HOLDINGS CORPORATION, MCI WORLDCOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC. MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES, INC., INTERVENOR v. THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION LEROY KOPPENDRAYER GREGORY SCOTT PHYLLIS REHA R. MARSHALL JOHNSON, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AND NOT AS INDIVIDUALS
Citations: 394 F.3d 568; 34 Communications Reg. (P&F) 857; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 26748Docket: 04-1434
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; December 21, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
The Eighth Circuit Court reviewed a case regarding the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) and its attempt to regulate Vonage Holdings Corporation's voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services. The District Court had previously granted a permanent injunction against MPUC, determining that federal communications law preempted state regulations on Vonage. MPUC appealed this decision. On November 12, 2004, during the appeal, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Declaratory Order stating that MPUC could not impose regulations on Vonage, as the interstate and intrastate components of Vonage's service were inseparable. The FCC's ruling was binding and could not be contested in this case. The Court noted that the Administrative Orders Review Act, known as the Hobbs Act, delineates how courts of appeals can review FCC orders, emphasizing that challenges must follow a specific process and cannot occur through collateral attacks in unrelated cases. Since the current case did not fall under Hobbs Act jurisdiction, MPUC could not contest the merits of the FCC's order here. As a result, the Court affirmed the District Court's injunction against MPUC, allowing for the possibility that MPUC could later challenge the injunction if it were to prevail in a proper Hobbs Act petition for review. The judgment of the District Court was thus upheld.