Atlantic City Electric Co. et al. v. United States et al.
400 U.S. 73 · No. 78 · 1970 term · Burger Court
Decided Dec 8, 1970 · argued Nov 12, 1970
Economic activity · Federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: electric power
The voteEach side
4–44 on each side
Equally divided: the decision below stands
Affirmed. Atlantic City Electric Co. et al. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed by an equally divided Court: with the justices split evenly, the decision of the New York Southern U.S. District Court stands, but the Court wrote no opinion and the ruling sets no precedent for other cases.
Atlantic City Electric Co. et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Wikipedia has no article on this case, so there is no summary.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
The Court split evenly, 4–4, which leaves the lower court’s decision in place without an opinion. Each justice who took part is placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1970 term.
Did not take part: William Douglas.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Atlantic City Electric Co. et al.Electric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company
- Respondent
- United States et al.United States
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Decided by
- Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Dec 8, 1970DecidedDecided · Decided 4–4: affirmed. Atlantic City Electric Co. et al. lost.
- Nov 12, 1970ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the New York Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
21 other argued cases since 1946 on federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: electric power, newest first.
- West Virginia v. Environmental Protection AgencyLandmark · Administrative law142 S. Ct. 2587Jun 30, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 2587Economic activityLandmark · Administrative law6–36–3 band
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association577 U.S. 260Jan 25, 2016 · 577 U.S. 260Economic activity6–27–2 band
- NRG Power Marketing, LLC, et al. v. Maine Public Utilities Commission et al.558 U.S. 165Jan 13, 2010 · 558 U.S. 165Economic activity8–18–1 band
- Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al.556 U.S. 208Apr 1, 2009 · 556 U.S. 208Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, et al.554 U.S. 527Jun 26, 2008 · 554 U.S. 527Economic activity5–27–2 band
- Arcadia, Ohio, et al. v. Ohio Power Company, et al.498 U.S. 73Nov 27, 1990 · 498 U.S. 73Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- American Paper Institute, Inc. v. American Electric Power Service Corp. et al.461 U.S. 402May 16, 1983 · 461 U.S. 402Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Federal Energy Administration et al. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., et al.426 U.S. 548Jun 17, 1976 · 426 U.S. 548Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Federal Power Commission v. Conway Corp. et al.426 U.S. 271Jun 7, 1976 · 426 U.S. 271Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians et al. v. Federal Power Commission et al.420 U.S. 395Mar 3, 1975 · 420 U.S. 395Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Federal Power Commission v. New England Power Co. et al.415 U.S. 345Mar 4, 1974 · 415 U.S. 345Economic activity7–0Unanimous band
- Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Federal Power Commission et al.411 U.S. 747May 14, 1973 · 411 U.S. 747Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Federal Power Commission v. Florida Power & Light Co.404 U.S. 453Jan 12, 1972 · 404 U.S. 453Economic activity4–27–2 band
- Gainesville Utilities Department et al. v. Florida Power Corp.402 U.S. 515May 24, 1971 · 402 U.S. 515Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Federal Power Commission v. Union Electric Co.381 U.S. 90May 3, 1965 · 381 U.S. 90Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Federal Power Commission v. Southern California Edison Co. et al.376 U.S. 205Mar 2, 1964 · 376 U.S. 205Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation362 U.S. 99Mar 7, 1960 · 362 U.S. 99Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co.350 U.S. 348Feb 27, 1956 · 350 U.S. 348Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Federal Power Commission v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.347 U.S. 239Mar 15, 1954 · 347 U.S. 239Economic activity4–36–3 band
- Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. et al. v. Federal Power Commission et al.343 U.S. 414May 26, 1952 · 343 U.S. 414Economic activity6–27–2 band
- Grand River Dam Authority v. Grand-Hydro335 U.S. 359Nov 22, 1948 · 335 U.S. 359Economic activity5–45–4 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia and the argument audio on Oyez. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.