Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.

**Question presented** Do the federal Natural Gas Act’s provisions that give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authority over wholesale and interstate‑pipeline rates also block (pre‑empt) state‑law antitrust lawsuits that allege the pipelines’ manipulation of price indexes raised retail (non‑wholesale) natural‑gas prices? **Holding** The Supreme Court held that the state‑law antitrust claims are **not** pre‑empted by the Natural Gas Act. The lawsuits may go forward. **Core reasoning in plain language** *The Court’s view* – The Natural Gas Act was written to let the federal government control the “wholesale” part of the gas market (how much pipelines can charge for moving gas across state lines). It deliberately left the “retail” part—what local distributors charge their customers—to the states. The plaintiffs’ antitrust claims are aimed at the retail prices they paid, not at the wholesale rates that FERC regulates. Because the claims focus on a matter that Congress clearly left to the states, the Act does not sweep them away. The Court also said that for a federal law to pre‑empt a state law, Congress must either (1) **explicitly** say the federal law covers the whole area (called “field pre‑emption”), or (2) make it impossible to obey both laws at the same time (called “conflict pre‑emption”). Here, the Natural Gas Act contains no clear statement that it covers state antitrust actions, and the parties did not show that the antitrust suits conflict with any specific FERC decision. Therefore, the federal law does not bar the state lawsuits. *The dissent’s view* – Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, argued that the pipelines’ alleged manipulation affected the wholesale market—an area that the Natural Gas Act gives FERC exclusive control over. Because the conduct touched the federally regulated wholesale rates, the dissent believed the state antitrust claims should be pre‑empted. **Vote** The majority opinion was written by Justice Breyer and joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and (except for one part) Thomas – a 7‑2 vote. Justice Scalia wrote the dissent, joined by Chief Justice Roberts.