Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, et al.
The court held that the Mobile–Sierra presumption that a negotiated rate is "just and reasonable" applies to all contract rates even if it was not actually reviewed for reasonableness, and the presumption applies regardless of whether the rate is considered too high or too low.
554 U.S. 527 · No. 06-1457 · 2007 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 26, 2008 · argued Feb 19, 2008
Economic activity · Federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: electric power
Majority opinion: Antonin Scalia
The voteMajorityDissent
5–25 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Affirmed. Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. won.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave 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.
Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1, 554 U.S. 527 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Mobile–Sierra presumption that a negotiated rate is "just and reasonable" applies to all contract rates even if it was not actually reviewed for reasonableness, and the presumption applies regardless of whether the rate is considered too high or too low.
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
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2007 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Antonin ScaliaWrote the majority opinion
Ruth GinsburgWrote a concurrence
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
John StevensWrote a dissent
David SouterJoined a dissent
Did not take part: Stephen Breyer, John Roberts.
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
- Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc.Electric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company
- Respondent
- Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, et al.County government or county governmental unit, except school district (Washington)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose 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.
- Provision
- Federal Power
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Federal common law; Statutory construction
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.
- Jun 26, 2008DecidedDecided · Decided 5–2: affirmed. Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. won.
- Feb 19, 2008ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: vacated.
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
- 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
- Atlantic City Electric Co. et al. v. United States et al.400 U.S. 73Dec 8, 1970 · 400 U.S. 73Economic activity4–45–4 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, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.