Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): antitrust immunity is not absolute. Accordingly, the party asserting state action doctrine immunity must demonstrate that the state legislature intended that the statute or regulation at issue supplant competition as a matter of “ ‘clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy.’ ” Second, that the policy must be “ ‘actively supervised’ ” by the state. See Midcal, 445 U.S. at 105, 100 S.Ct. 937 (quoting City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U.S. 389, 410, 98 S.Ct. 1123, 55 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978)). A private party, like Waste Management— Washington, may claim “state action” immunity but only if both parts of the Midcal test are satisfied. See Federal Trade Commission v. Ticor Title Insurance Co., 504 U.S. 621, 636, 112 S.Ct. 2169, 119 L.Ed.2d 410 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Private conduct cannot be immunized by the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that stateaction immunity issues immunity from federal statutes not intended to restrain state action or official action directed by a state  are immediately appealable under cohen and mitchell (B) holding that these tests are directed at ensuring that particular anticompetitive mechanisms operate because of a deliberate and intended state policy (C) holding that only deliberate clear and unambiguous statements are judicial admissions (D) recognizing that motions for directed verdicts are not normally directed to bits and pieces of an action (E) holding that epa need not incorporate particular tests when evaluating applications if relevant statutory language does not explicitly require such tests
Output (English): holding that only deliberate clear and unambiguous statements are judicial admissions