Case Name: TOOLSON v. NEW YORK YANKEES, INC. et al.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1953-11-09
Citations: 346 U.S. 356
Docket Number: NO. 18
Parties: TOOLSON v. NEW YORK YANKEES, INC. et al.
Judges: with whom Mr. Justice Reed concurs,
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 346
Pages: 356–365

Head Matter:
TOOLSON v. NEW YORK YANKEES, INC. et al.
NO. 18.
Argued October 13, 1953.
Decided November 9, 1953.
Howard C. Parke argued the cause for petitioner in No. 18. With him on the brief was Gene M. Harris.
Frederic A. Johnson argued the cause for petitioner in No. 23 and Seymour Martinson argued the cause for petitioners in No. 25. With them on the briefs were Maurice H. Koodish and Edward Martinson.
Norman S. Sterry argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents in No. 18.
Raymond T. Jackson argued the cause for respondents in Nos. 23 and 25. With him on the briefs were Benjamin F. Fiery and Louis F. Carroll.
Thomas Reed Powell filed a brief for the Boston American League Base Ball Company in No. 18, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U. S. 200 (1922), this Court held that the business of providing public baseball games for profit between clubs of professional baseball players was not within the scope of the federal antitrust laws. Congress has had the ruling under consideration but has not seen fit to bring such business under these laws by legislation having prospective effect. The business has thus been left for thirty years to develop, on the understanding that it was not subject to existing antitrust legislation. The present cases ask us to overrule the prior decision and, with retrospective effect, hold the legislation applicable. We think that if there are evils in this field which now warrant application to it of the antitrust laws it should be by legislation. Without re-examination of the underlying issues, the judgments below are affirmed on the authority of Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, supra, so far as that decision determines that Congress had no intention of including the business of baseball within the scope of the federal antitrust laws.
Affirmed.