Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.

Background

Catherine Jackson, a York, Pennsylvania resident, had electricity at her home from Metropolitan Edison. After an earlier account in her name was closed for unpaid bills, service resumed under another occupant’s name. Months later Metropolitan visited, claimed meter tampering, and four days after that disconnected service without further notice. Jackson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking money damages and an order to restore service until she received notice and a hearing, arguing state law gives her an entitlement to reasonably continuous service.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether Metropolitan’s disconnection was "state action." The majority said heavy regulation, a certificate to serve, and a filed tariff allowing disconnection did not by themselves make the company’s conduct state action. The Court required a close nexus between the State and the specific act and concluded Pennsylvania’s regulation, the tariff filing, and the Commission’s inaction were not enough. Because no state action was found, the Court did not decide whether Jackson had a property right or what process would be required.

Real world impact

The ruling leaves most disputes over utility shutoffs to state law and the private terms utilities set in their tariffs unless a stronger state connection is shown. Consumers cannot rely on the Fourteenth Amendment unless they can show the State was sufficiently involved in the particular termination. The decision affirms the dismissal of Jackson’s federal claim and sends similar cases back to be decided under non-constitutional remedies or state law.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices dissented, arguing the combination of a state-granted monopoly, extensive regulation, and the Commission’s approval of the tariff created a sufficient state nexus. They urged that shutting off power without notice to a household is a serious deprivation that federal law should reach.