## Facts

- Retail purchasers of natural gas (manufacturers, hospitals, and others) bought gas for their own use, including purchases tied to interstate market price indices.
- Interstate natural-gas sellers allegedly reported false price and volume data and engaged in “wash trades” to inflate published natural-gas price indices.
- The indices served as benchmarks for contract prices and allegedly raised prices paid by retail end users, while also affecting wholesale prices.
- Plaintiffs sued under multiple states’ antitrust laws seeking damages for inflated prices on their retail purchases.
- The federal district court held the claims preempted by the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding the state antitrust claims were not preempted because they sought recovery for retail injuries.
- The Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether the NGA preempts these state-law antitrust actions.

## Issues

1. Whether the NGA field-preempts state antitrust claims by retail buyers challenging conduct that affects both retail prices and FERC-jurisdictional wholesale rates.
2. Whether state antitrust laws of general applicability are preempted when applied to alleged manipulation of natural-gas price indices used in interstate markets.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court held the NGA does not preempt the retail buyers’ state-law antitrust claims.
- The Court reasoned the claims were directed at practices affecting retail rates, an area reserved primarily to the States, even if the conduct also influences wholesale rates.
- The Court noted defendants identified no specific FERC order or determination that the state suits would conflict with.
- The Court limited its holding to the type of claims and plaintiffs before it and did not decide preemption for other state laws, other plaintiffs, or different settings.

## Legal Principles

- The NGA establishes a jurisdictional line: federal regulation (through FERC) covers interstate transportation and wholesale sales for resale, while states retain authority over retail sales and related regulation.
- Field preemption analysis turns on the aim of the challenged state law as applied—whether it targets conduct within FERC’s wholesale-rate field or targets matters on the state side, such as retail pricing and retail-market harms.
- Generally applicable state antitrust laws are not automatically displaced in industries subject to federal regulation; incidental effects on wholesale markets do not alone trigger NGA field preemption.
- A broad rule preempting any state law that affects wholesale rates would impermissibly collapse the federal–state division Congress created in the NGA.
- Absent a concrete conflict with a specific federal determination, courts should be reluctant to infer displacement of traditional state antitrust remedies for retail purchasers.

## Conclusion

The Court held that retail purchasers’ state antitrust suits alleging manipulation of natural-gas price indices were not field-preempted by the NGA because the claims targeted retail harms and retail pricing, even though the alleged conduct also affected wholesale rates regulated by FERC.


Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015)