Dan M. Lipschultz, In His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, et al., Petitioners v. Charter Advanced Services (MN), LLC, et al.

The justices declined to hear this case, so they did not decide whether federal communications policy blocks Minnesota from regulating Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service or how VoIP should be classified under federal law. That leaves the Eighth Circuit's result in place without a Supreme Court answer on the merits.

On Oct. 21, 2019, the Court declined review; the record provided here does not give a vote breakdown or opinion lineup.

VoIP service is widely used and is replacing traditional phone service for many customers. The fight matters to state regulators, phone and internet providers, and consumers because it can affect which rules apply to services people use for calls over the internet.

There is no further action in this Supreme Court docket. In practical terms, the lower-court outcome remains in effect unless lawmakers, regulators, or a future case changes the law.

The petition asked whether FCC policy preempts (blocks) state regulation of VoIP service. It also asked whether VoIP is a telecommunications service or an information service.

State utility regulators, internet-based phone companies, and customers using app-based or broadband calling services could all be affected. Different classifications can change what rules providers must follow.

The Court finished the case by declining review. That means the Supreme Court did not decide the merits, and the Eighth Circuit result stayed in place.