At&T Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the court does not “resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear” (quoting Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 147-48, 114 S.Ct. 655, 662, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994))
• “to ‘interconnect’ and to exchange traffic have distinct meanings”; interconnect “refers only to ‘facilities and equipment,’ not to the provision of any service”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).