Supreme Court of the United States, 2001

Mathias v. WorldCom Technologies, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 5, 2001 · No. 00-878 · Consideration, Took

532 U.S. 903; 121 S. Ct. 1224 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland (Supreme Court of the United States 2002)
Global Naps, Inc. v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2001)
Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. Bie (District Court, W.D. Wisconsin 2001)
MCI Telecommunication Corp. v. Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc. (3d Cir. 2001)
Global Naps, Inc. v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2002)
Mci Telecommunication Corporation v. Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania (3d Cir. 2001)
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Sprint-Florida, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 2001)
Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. ICG Telecom Group, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2001)
New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Conversent Communications of Rhode Island, L.L.C. (District Court, D. Rhode Island 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to the following questions:

“1. Whether a state commission’s action relating to the enforcement of a previously approved §252 interconnection agreement is a ‘determination under [§252]’ and thus is reviewable in federal court under 47 U. S. C. § 252(e)(6)?

"2. Whether a state commission’s acceptance of Congress’ invitation to participate in implementing a federal regulatory scheme that provides that state commission determinations are reviewable in federal court constitutes a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity?

“3. Whether an official capacity action seeking prospective relief against state public utility commissioners for alleged ongoing violations of federal law in performing federal regulatory functions under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 can be maintained under the Ex parte Young doctrine?”

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.