Opinion ID: 3010542
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stigma injury

Text: 10. In Sessions, the injury resulted from the denial of permits, while here the injury is from the prohibition precluding applicants from taking bar examinations in many states. 23 MSL also alleges that independent of any bar examination requirements, it was injured by the stigmatic effect in the market place of the denial of accreditation. MSL claims that the ABA has conducted a campaign to convey the idea that ABA accreditation is the sine qua non of quality and that the ABA is the most, or only, competent organization to judge law schools. There is enough evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact on this issue. See app. at 2105-09, 3570-72. Nevertheless, the district court ruled that this injury could not form the basis for antitrust liability because it was “incidental to the primary, protected injury,” and thus immune under Noerr. MSL, 937 F. Supp. at 442. MSL challenges this holding on the grounds that there was no petitioning of government here, and therefore Noerr does not apply. The DOJ as amicus challenges the holding to the extent it finds petitioning unnecessary for immunity for stigma injury, but takes no position on whether any petitioning took place. We hold that there was sufficient petitioning to invoke Noerr immunity.11 MSL relies extensively on the Supreme Court's decision in Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc, 486 U.S. 492, 11. In its reply brief, MSL seriously misstates the Noerr doctrine, arguing that only successful petitioning of courts to clearly and affirmatively authorize . . . closely supervise, review and approve the ABA's conduct would provide immunity. MSL reply br. at 19. Under Noerr, any solicitation of government action is immune, whether or not it is successful. This mischaracterization stems from MSL's continued inability to recognize that there is state action at issue here, not private conduct. 24 108 S.Ct. 1931 (1988).12 In Allied Tube, a producer of electrical conduit sought approval of its product from the National Fire Protection Association for inclusion of the product in the Association's National Electrical Code. A substantial number of state and local governments adopted the code virtually without change. To be included in the code, all that was required was a majority vote of the members present at the annual meeting of the Association. To prevent approval of the electrical conduit at question in the case, competitors of the producer stacked the annual meeting with persons who pledged to vote against approval. On the facts in Allied Tube the Court held that the code developed by the defendants had a force in the marketplace independent of any government adoption (or petitioning for such adoption) in that there was a conspiracy among manufacturers, distributors, and consumers not to trade in products not approved by the code. 486 U.S. at 503, 507, 108 S.Ct. at 1938-40. Further, the Court held that the application of Noerr immunity depends “on the context and nature of the . . . activity,” and found the challenged conduct to be “the type of commercial activity that has traditionally had its validity determined by the antitrust laws.” 486 U.S. at 504-05, 108 S.Ct. at 1939. That was so, the Court reasoned, because the activity 12. MSL's additional reliance on American Soc'y of Mechanical Eng’rs, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp., 456 U.S. 556, 102 S.Ct. 1935 (1982), is misplaced because that case dealt with agency and apparent authority issues and does not consider Parker or Noerr immunity. It also dealt with an attempt to interfere directly with a company's customers, 456 U.S. at 562, 102 S.Ct. at 1940, an exception to Noerr inapplicable here. 25 of which the producer complained involved the dubious commercial practices of economically interested actors that had an impact on the political process; it was not political activity that had an impact on commerce. The conduct of which MSL complains here is basically the ABA's justification of its accreditation decisions and MSL is asserting a loss of prestige resulting from it. This conduct is neither normal commercial activity nor the type of restraint of trade involved in Allied Tube, and thus that case is not controlling. A loss of prestige resulting from a refusal to approve a product or service does not alone make out an antitrust claim. See Schachar v. American Academy of Ophthalmology, Inc., 870 F.2d 397, 399 (7th Cir. 1989); Consolidated Metal Prods., Inc. v. American Petroleum Inst., 846 F.2d 284, 293 (5th Cir. 1988). Noerr immunity is proper in this case because the ABA engaged in petitioning activity, and the stigma injury which MSL suffered was incidental to that activity.13 MSL admits that in the past, “from the 1920's to approximately the mid 1970's,” the ABA petitioned the states in a campaign to prohibit graduates from unaccredited schools from taking bar examinations. See MSL br. at 16. This campaign was obviously successful as now most states require graduation from an ABA-accredited school for admission to the bar. The ABA's current conduct surely would be considered petitioning if it took place during the past campaign. 13. There is no “conspiracy” exception to either Noerr or Parker immunity. Omni, 499 U.S. at 383, 111 S.Ct. at 1355. 26 The fact that the ABA was successful in lobbying the states does not weaken its position. The ABA continues to communicate its accreditation decisions to the states, and it desires that they continue to give them credence. Discussing the quality and competence of its decisions is a legitimate, although somewhat indirect, way of petitioning the states to continue to follow its guidance. Yet, such activity is no more indirect than the public relations campaign held to be petitioning in Noerr. 365 U.S. at 140-41, 81 S.Ct. at 531. There is an exception to Noerr immunity that would apply if the ABA “attempted directly to persuade anyone not to deal with” MSL. See Noerr, 365 U.S. at 142, 81 S.Ct. at 532. There is no evidence that the ABA made such an attempt (there was such evidence in Allied Tube), nor is there any other evidence suggesting that Noerr immunity should not apply here. In a supplemental filing of information after oral argument, MSL produced two instances where it claims the ABA directly mentioned MSL. The first is a Boston Globe article about the denial of accreditation to MSL in which an ABA governor defended the ABA standards as providing “a minimum level of quality and consumer protection assurance to the public.” John H. Kennedy, “Andover Law School Loses Appeal for Accreditation,” Boston Globe, February 9, 1994, at 42. The second proffered piece of evidence is a transcript of the ABA House of Delegates debate of MSL's accreditation application, where one member urged the denial of MSL's application and stated that the standards with which MSL did not comply “lie at the heart of a quality institution.” 27 Both of these statements do nothing more than defend the ABA standards. As we discuss above, this is valid, if indirect, petitioning activity. The ABA is not saying directly that MSL is a bad institution, or that a particular student should not go there. MSL's attempts to characterize all the ABA's comments about the quality of its accreditation process as direct attacks on MSL does not make them direct attacks. We also point out that if a claim for stigma injury could be advanced in circumstances like those here, Noerr immunity would be confined severely; a petitioner for governmental action is likely to urge that the action is needed to ensure that standards are met, thereby suggesting that some entities do not meet appropriate standards.