FCC v. The States: Who Shall Regulate Intrastate Telecommunications?

The 1934 Communications Act established a dual system of federaland State telecommunications regulation. The act gave the FederalCommunications Commission (FCC) authority to regulate interstateand foreign telecommunications but not intrastate communications,a market reserved for the states. As part of its move to deregulatethe telecommunications market in the 1970s, the FCC sought toextend its jurisdiction by preempting state regulatory authorityover telecommunications activities traditionally consideredintrastate. In 1986, however, the U.S. Supreme Court, in itsdecision in Louisiana Public Service, restricted federal preemptionof state laws and reinforced the dual regulatory system. Withthe break-up of AT&T, the FCC has renewed its preemptionactivities, claiming that the preemption is necessary in orderto foster an efficient nationwide telecommunications system.Several cases now pending in federal courts will test the breadthand depth of the Supreme Court's holding in Louisiana PublicService, and thereby, the future of the dual regulatory system.     

Federal Preemption of State Regulation of Insurance: End of a 200-Year Era?

This article examines state regulation of insurance, focusingon congressional and judicial attempts to displace state regulatoryprimacy over insurance. After describing the early period ofstate insurance regulation from the U.S. Supreme Court's decisionin Paul v. Virginia to the Court's overruling of that decision,the article examines the McCarran-Ferguson Act and the post-McCarranenvironment, including examples of judicial preemption of stateinsurance laws. Finally, the article considers the system ofinsurance regulation envisioned in H.R. 1290, the most recentcongressional attempt to displace state insurance regulation,and state initiatives to counter federal regulation. AlthoughH.R.1290 purports to setup a dual regulatory scheme, the broadpreemption language in the bill would allow federal regulatorsto preempt virtually all state insurance laws. Moreover, thedecisions of the Supreme Court in Garcia v. San Antonio MetropolitanTransit Authority and Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Councilwould leave no political or judicial forum for states to debatethe extent and impact of federal preemption     

Interstate Banking: Current Status and Unfinished Agendas

In 1986, most of the centuries-old barriers against interstatebranch banking fell. By the end of the year, thirty-seven stateshad passed legislation authorizing some form of interstate branchbanking. Moreover, two federal judicial decisions had clearedthe way for interstate banking by restricting state regulatoryauthority over interstate branch banking when it is conductedeither through a shared-use automatic teller machine or by a"nonbank bank." These developments have dramatically changedthe nature of the business of banking, creating an entirelynew legislative agenda for states. High on the list of the itemsthat states must now consider are regulatory and tax parityamong competing financial institutions; multiple taxation offinancial institutions that do business in several states; taxavoidance by out-of-state banks; and out-dated jurisdictionalstandards.