No. 17- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _________ MERCURY CASUALTY CO., ET AL ., Petitioners, v. DAVE JONES , INSURANCE COMMISSIONER , ET AL ., Respondents. _________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District _________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI _________ VANESSA O. WELLS NEAL KUMAR KATYAL HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Counsel of Record 4085 Campbell Ave., Ste. 100 EUGENE A. SOKOLOFF Menlo Park, CA 94025 SUNDEEP IYER * HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 637-5600
[email protected] *Admitted only in Maryland; supervised by principals of the firm. Counsel for Petitioners QUESTION PRESENTED The Constitution forbids States from imposing price controls that are “confiscatory.” Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch , 488 U.S. 299, 307 (1989). If a State imposes a price or rate that fails to “afford sufficient compensation” to a regulated firm, “the State has taken the use” of the firm’s property “with- out paying just compensation and so violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Id. at 308. California is one of many States that regulate the rates that businesses may charge for certain prod- ucts and services. In this case, the California Court of Appeal concluded that the Federal Constitution does not prohibit States from imposing rates that are so low as to preclude regulated businesses from earning a fair rate of return—meaning a return that is both sufficient “to attract capital” and “commensu- rate with returns on investments in other enterpris- es having corresponding risks.” Fed.