Document: 70 L.Ed.2d 810 102 S.Ct. 835 455 U.S. 40 COMMUNITY COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, INC., Petitioner,v.CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, et al. No. 80-1350. Argued Oct. 13, 1981. Decided Jan. 1982. Syllabus Respondent city of Boulder is a "home rule" municipality, granted by the Colorado Constitution extensive powers self-government in local and municipal matters. Petitioner assignee permit ordinance to conduct cable television business within limits. Originally, only limited service certain area could be provided petitioner, but improved technology offered petitioner an opportunity expand its into other areas, also opportunities potential competitors, one whom expressed interest obtaining provide competing service. The City Council then enacted "emergency" prohibiting from expanding for three months, during which time was draft model invite new businesses enter market under terms that ordinance. filed suit Federal District Court, alleging such restriction would violate § 1 Sherman Act, seeking preliminary injunction prevent restricting petitioner's proposed expansion. responded moratorium not violative antitrust laws because, inter alia, enjoyed immunity "state action" doctrine Parker v. Brown, 317 341, 63 307, 87 L.Ed. 315. Court held exemption inapplicable therefore subject liability. Accordingly, issued injunction. Appeals reversed, holding city's action satisfied criteria exemption. Held : Boulder's exempt scrutiny doctrine. Pp. 48-57. (a) cannot unless it constitutes either State itself sovereign capacity or furtherance implementation clearly articulated affirmatively state policy. Pp.48-51. (b) reflects Congress' intention embody Act federalism principle States possess significant measure sovereignty Constitution. But this inherently limited: Ours "dual system government," Parker, supra, at 351, S.Ct., 313, has no place cities. Here, direct delegation through Home Rule Amendment does render "act government" performed acting as matters so meet criterion. 52-54. (c) Nor requirement "clear articulation affirmative expression" policy fulfilled here Amendment's "guarantee autonomy," since State's position mere neutrality respecting challenged This case involves absence any regulation State, said further implement 54-56. (d) Respondents' argument denial will have serious adverse consequences cities unduly burden federal courts simply attack upon wisdom longstanding congressional commitment free markets open competition embodied laws, apply municipalities 56-57. 630 F.2d 704 (10th Cir.), reversed remanded. Harold R. Farrow, Oakland, Cal., petitioner. Thomas P. McMahon, Asst. Atty. Gen. Colorado, al., amici curiae, special leave Court. Jeffrey H. Howard, Washington, D. C., respondents. [Argument Counsel pages 42-43 intentionally omitted] Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion question presented case, injunctive relief, whether constitution matters, enjoys liability announced 315 (1943). 2 * organized municipality Colorado.1 thus entitled exercise "the full right both matters," with respect Charter ordinances supersede State. Under Charter, all legislative are exercised elected Council.2 In 1964 granting Televents, Inc., 20-year, revocable, nonexclusive assigned 1966, University Hill Boulder, where some 20% population lives, where, geographical reasons, broadcast signals received. 3 From 1966 until February 1980, due available, consisted essentially retransmissions programming Denver Cheyenne, Wyo. Petitioner's confined area. However, markedly became available late 1970's, enabling offer many more channels entertainment than television.3 Thus areas city, May 1979 informed planned well, July them, newly formed Communications Co. (BCC),4 wrote Council, expressing throughout city.5 4 Council's response, after reviewing policy,6 enactment period months.7 terms, necessary because continued expansion drafting discourage competitors entering market.8 5 United sought, expansion, Act.9 constituted police powers, considered status home rule determined gave autonomy concern, operations embrace "wider concerns, including interstate commerce . [and] First rights communicators." 485 F.Supp. 1035, 1038-1039 (1980). Then, assuming, arguendo, authority Lafayette Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 389, 98 1123, 55 364 (1978), concluded "wholly inapplicable," F.Supp., 1039.10 motion accordingly granted. 6 On appeal, divided panel Tenth Circuit reversed. majority, examining law, rejected Court's conclusion beyond city. Id., 707. majority addressed claimed It distinguished present on ground that, contrast municipally operated revenue-producing utility companies issue there, "no proprietary involved." F.2d, 708. After noting "was control active supervision government, represented expression matter," id., 707, actions exemption, 708.11 We certiorari, 450 1039, 101 1756, 68 236 (1981). reverse. II A. 7 (1943), prohibited imposing anticompetitive restraints. These took form "marketing program" adopted California 1940 raisin crop; program prevented appellee freely marketing his crop commerce. noted California's "derived 8 command state," 350, went hold exempt, virtue Act's own limitations, attack: 9 "We find nothing language history suggests purpose restrain officers agents activities directed legislature. dual government which, Constitution, states sovereign, save Congress may constitutionally subtract their authority, unexpressed nullify state's over lightly attributed Congress." 350-351, 313-314. 10 availability Lafayette, supra. petitioners were empowered operate electric systems brought against they had committed various offenses systems, injury respondent. Petitioners invoked entitling them dismissal suit. accepted dismissed. Fifth "subordinate governmental body ipso facto operation laws," 532 431, 434 (1976) (footnote omitted), directing remand examine "whether legislature contemplated type restraint," ibid.12 11 affirmed. doing so, outset petitioners' claim quite apart "Congress never intended governments laws." U.S., 394, 1127. A plurality four Justices properly construed, extended "all entities, agencies subdivisions reason such." 408, 1134. argument, discussion Goldfarb Virginia Bar, 421 773, 95 2004, 44 572 (1975), Bates Bar Arizona, 433 97 2697, 53 (1977).13 precedents construed we Nation States, makes accommodation States. said: 12 "Cities themselves sovereign; do receive deference create them. limitation 'official state,' consistent fact States' generally been treated equivalents themselves. light economic dislocation result if parochial interests above Nation's goals reflected especially unwilling presume exclude reach." 412-413, 1136-1137 citations omitted). 13 emphasized, however, might sanction thereby immunize plurality's standard, shield engaged "pursuant displace monopoly public service." 413, 1137. recognition frequently choose effect policies instrumentality towns. stressed, policy" relied "clearly expressed." 410, 1135. standard New Motor Vehicle Board Orrin W. Fox 439 96, 109, 99 403, 411-12, 58 361 (1978); Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. Midcal Aluminum, 445 97, 105, 100 937, 943, 233 (1980).14 B 14 Our reveal capacity, see policy, Midcal. argues these met contends satisfies standards. take up arguments turn. 15 (1) 16 emphasizes people vested " 'every power theretofore possessed affairs.' "15 assertedly embraces television, pose problems.16 Thus, suggested, meets criterion Parker.17 17 reject argument: misstates letter law misunderstands spirit. state-action our contains limitation: 313 (emphasis added), As stated long ago, "within limits States" resides 18 Government [with] Union. There exist broad domain two. cities, counties, bodies functions, derived from, in, subordination these." Kagama, 118 375, 379, 1109, 1111, 30 228 (1886) added). 19 dissent correctly discerned principle: nation 'city-states' States." 717. view. When examined intentions enacting opinion, previously indicated, that: "[N]othing [And] 313-314 recognized limit based sovereignty. reaffirmed vitality intrinsic expressly "are sovereign," 412, 1136, partake extent acted pursuant view 411-412, Midcal, 943. turn contention undertaken 20 (2) 21 first autonomy." contends, quoting 415, 1127, 1138, means "comprehended granted" enact ordinance, "contemplated" regulatory program. Further, inferred, "from given" "to particular area"—here, asserted regulate television—"that kind complained of." (Emphasis supplied.) concludes "adequate mandate" required here.18 22 plainly when anticompetitive. allows please can hardly specific sought. those truly described granted," term, "granted," necessarily implies addressing did here: relationship precise neutrality. below acknowledged: "[W]e concerned whatever Colorado. circumstances there interaction regulation. City." Indeed, regulated General Assembly without act. Cf. 414 n. 44, 1137 44. view, pursue course regulating competition, while another prescribe service, still elect free-market competition: equally "contemplated," granted." Acceptance proposition—that general grant authorization ordinances—would wholly eviscerate concepts require. III 23 Respondents argue courts. laws.19 Those like civil criminal sanctions "persons," well corporate entities.20 Moreover, judicial enforcement regarding renders less able allocate between political subdivisions. authorized practice, exercising delegated must obey 416, 1138. observed case: 24 "Today's decision threaten legitimate power, nor preclude providing services basis. progeny make clear authorize instrumentalities act way reflect inconsistent laws. [A]ssuming basis, limitations hobble execution programs." 416-417, 1138-1139 25 judgment remanded proceedings opinion. 26 ordered. 27 JUSTICE WHITE part consideration case. 28 STEVENS, concurring. 29 I joined, explains why dissenting seems assume analysis tantamount violated. assumption valid. dissent's dire predictions about should viewed skepticism.1 364, municipalities' providers Act. reasons denying applicable even though home-rule violated different character respective differs. cases, violation separate distinct issue. 31 brief reference Cantor Detroit Edison 428 579, 96 3110, 49 1141, identify invalidity assumption. Michigan Public Utility Commission approved tariff customers bulbs. company contended bulb distribution See 592, 3118. company's interpretation plaintiff proceed surely suggest members who become parties contrary, reviewed great detail emphasize obvious difference charge officials private done so.2 32 premature stage litigation comment establish respondents answer depend factual legal issues resolved instance accordance my belief adhere settled giving concrete meaning process case-by-case adjudication controversies," 603, 3124 (opinion J.), gratuitous advice questions think relevant. My observation nearly simple implies. 33 REHNQUIST, THE CHIEF O'CONNOR join, dissenting. 34 flawed two respects, impede, paralyze, governments' efforts regulations aimed protecting health, safety, welfare, fear subjecting U.S.C. seq. First, treats "exempt" statutes, ordinances, pre-empted Supremacy Clause. Second, municipality's furthers implements policy," ante, 52, subdivision entity indistinguishable privately owned business. read legislation conflict supplant competitive forces economy regulated. 35 Pre-emption fundamentally concepts. Pre-emption, Clause, implicates basic notions federalism. whenever called interplay enactments sovereigns—one state." Handler, Antitrust—1978, 78 Colum.L.Rev. 1363, 1379 (1978). confronted Clause resolve purported occupied field exclusively, foreclose Where pre-emption found, fall effort accommodate purposes interests. Because treads very sensitive federal-state relations, "reluctant infer pre-emption," Exxon Corp. Governor Maryland, 437 117, 132, 2207, 2217, 57 91 presumption found absent manifest Ray Atlantic Richfield 151, 157, 988, 994, 179 36 contrast, single sovereign—whether relieve party necessity complying prior enactment. See, e.g., National Broiler Marketing 436 816, 2122, 56 728 (1978) (Sherman Capper-Volstead Act); Philadelphia Bank, 374 321, 350-355, 83 1715, 1734-37, 915 (1963) (Clayton Bank Merger 1960); Silver York Stock Exchange, 373 357-361, 1246, 1257-59, 389 Securities Exchange Act). Since involved, problems present. court interpreting statute attempt ascertain intent, express implied. presumptions utilized applied context. questions, proper approach reconciles statutory schemes rather completely ousted." 357, 1257. 37 With distinction mind, involving so-called framed being ones Issues inevitably involve contended, 38 genesis That involved challenge established Agricultural Prorate sought restrict industry limiting producer's ability distribute raisins channels. maintain prices level higher maintained unregulated market. assumed "organized made effective solely contract, combination conspiracy persons, individual corporate," could, prohibit maintaining stabilization commerce." 313. regard, "[o]ccupation familiar example constitutional suspend Ibid. held, "[w]e 313-14. 39 decided intend override designed economy. "exemption," implied, usual incantation "repeals implication disfavored." Instead, same acts purely constitute recognized, explaining "a give authorizing it, declaring lawful ." 314. most recent cases all, instead matter pre-emption. 41 Bd. Automobile Franchise conflicted motor vehicle manufacturer secure approval before dealership existing franchisee's area, franchisee objected. By delaying opening protested, arguably initiated restraints trade, invalid Schwegmann Bros. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 384, 71 745, 1035 (1951). outside purview regulation, expressed, unfettered freedom establishment relocation automobile dealerships." 411-412. merely effect. Otherwise, enough 'the engage effectively destroyed.' 111, 412 (quoting 133, 2218). Bd., stand face 42 (1980), invalidated wine-pricing price-setting resale price maintenance, consistently "per se" 102-103, 941-42. fit Although restraint imposed actively supervised itself. enforced fixing parties, establishing reasonableness. sufficient supervision, pricing 105-106, 943-944. 43 Unlike instant challenges statute. suggestion violates enacts saved invalidation unenforceable gist actually policy.1 According liable legislation, show "instrumentality" Viewing manner troubling lower now adapt principles adjudicate much footnote 20. Among encountered rules illegality defendants defendants. Another remedies. understandably leaves treble damages protected doctrine.2 45 Most troubling, factors Reason. Society Professional Engi- neers 679, 695, 1355, 1367, 637 defended basis party's posed threat safety ethics profession. "[T]he Reason support defense unreasonable." 696, 1368. Engineers holds replace competence entities. entities defend unreasonable procompetitive effects outweigh effects. Continental T.V., Inc. GTE Sylvania 36, 2549, 568 (1977). 46 Applying mean benefits community, traditional welfare disabled displacing restrictive zoning requiring occupational licenses, exclusive franchises services, best inhabitants Competition lie behind social legislation. effects, 2217-2218, hesitated invalidate statutes parties. 941-942 (resale maintenance); (1951) (same). (Court effected persons). Unless point given regulated, scheme rendered invalid. Surely, seek require justify every If permitted destroyed. 2217-2218. country's unable experiment innovative programs. Ice Liebmann, 285 262, 311, 52 371, 386-387, 76 747 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). 47 hand, rejecting rationale defendant opens sort Pandora's Box. "modified" community review reminiscent Lochner (Lochner York, 198 45, 539, 937 (1905)) era. Once again, wide-ranging, standardless inquiry reasonableness rejected. Instead "liberty contract" "substantive process," governing determined.3 Neither Due Process authorizes opining unwisely. deemed "substitute beliefs bodies, pass Ferguson Skrupa, 372 726, 730, 1028, 1031, 93 (1963). appointed sit "superlegislature weigh legislation." Lincoln Labor Union Northwestern Iron Metal 335 525, 535, 69 251, 256, 212 (1949). 48 Before leaps abyss ought desires role validity Analyzing problem avoid problems. anomaly ordinances.4 Rather, testing presently assessing statutes. upheld criteria: survives supervises policy.5 agree activity participant agreement others trade." 351-352, 50 Apart misconstruing "exemption" pre-emption, comes startling implicated principled conclude, susceptible hence "sovereigns," otherwise valid reasoning remarkable indeed. preempted regard pre-emptive law. standards regardless Burbank Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 624, 1854, 547 (1973); Huron Portland Cement Detroit, 362 440, 80 813, 852 (1960). suspect dramatically alter analysis. Yet, precisely what appears invoke litigant. similar fashion applies created 51 employed determine Like haled order replaced TheParker fostering infringed structured ensure replacing treating litigant attempting doctrine, today radically Municipalities longer imprimatur competition.6 destroys movement country, obtained, persistent opposition, concern.7 lose autonomy. totally dealing defenseless articulating Nothing short altering enable legislate important inhabitants. attacks, cede back unfortunate novel egregious error uses Amendment, Colo.Const., Art. XX, 6, provides pertinent part: "The each town state, having thousand ., hereby with, shall always have, make, amend, add charter town, organic extend "Such thereto territorial jurisdiction therewith. "It article confirm coming provisions far applicable, continue towns, except insofar superseded charters towns passed charters." Colo., (1965 rev. ed.). noted: "Up 1975, country primarily retransmission normal reception, weather news originated operators. During 1970's satellite impacted prompted rapid, almost geometric rise growth. earth stations expensive, 'Home Box Office' developed, response greatly increased demand expanded services. 'state art' channels, movies, sports, FM radio, educational, children's, religious programming. institutional fast increasing, two-way capability. Future referred 'blue sky', indicating virtually unlimited technological improvements expected." 1036-1037 BCC below, respondent here. Regarding letter, "BCC outlined proposal system, acknowledging presence [petitioner] stating '(w)hatever takes [petitioner], plan begin building soon feasible grants permit.' 1037. initiat[ed] reconsideration changes 1964. hired consultant, number study meetings develop changes. primary thrust [the consultant's] tendency natural monopoly. Much centered around supposed unfair advantage already operating Boulder. Members Manager, fears [petitioner might] operator nonetheless head start wanted situation offers hampered possibility build out whole arrived." preamble following declarations justification enactment: "[C]able months displayed serving requested [them] permission use right-of-way service; ". permittee, indicated intends near future .; finds extension hindering compete market; adopt solicit applications interested companies, evaluate applications, additional permits [within] disruption application evaluation process; placing temporary impair [it] residents, [its] improve served it." Ordinance 4473 (1979). reached despite BCC's statement n.5, Stat. 209, amended, 1. Section "[e]very conspiracy, trade among several declared illegal." alleged, substituting although gathered circumstantial evidence indicate insufficient probability prevail claim. 1038. per se appeared record attempted 1039-1040. cited reading "that wherein asserting interest, Parker-Midcal liability." urged affirmance, agreeing 715-718 (Markey, C. Customs Patent Appeals, sitting designation, "[c]ommon contract equity," 715, customers, actual potential, 710-714. petition certiorari question, address follows: "[I]t mandate alleged suffice intent. trial judge ascertain, of. connection subordinate entity's too tenuous scope encompassed conduct. district judge's include intent." 434-435 citation JUSTICE, concurring focused nature identity 420, 1140. He enterprises municipalities," 422, 1141 "traditional functions," 424, 1142, extending latter. maintenance affecting wine producers wholesalers holding, explicitly principle, gain denied failed satisfy "active supervision" 1135, underlying conclude criterion, reach test Urban Renewal Authority Byrne, 618 P.2d 1374, 1381 Four-County Metropolitan Capital Improvement County Comm'rs, 149 Colo. 284, 294, 369 67, 72 (1962) original). Byrne "by Article inferior concerning affairs." P.2d, 1381. strongly disputes premise construction citing Sweet, 138 41, 48, 329 441, (1958), Tihen, 77 212, 219-220, 235 777, 780-781 (1925), E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations 9.08a, p. 638 (1979), contrary authority. us correct affords cites Supreme Manor Vail Condominium Vail, 199 62, 66-67, 604 1168, 1171-1172 proposition matter. rebuttal Southwestern Cable 392 168-169, 88 1994, 2000-2001, 1001 (1968), communication. contention, joined amicus For assume, deciding, Amendment. urges continues, difference, sphere affairs once qualifies set forth concurrence, function," "proprietary enterprise." Antitrust general, particular, Magna Carta enterprise. They preservation free-enterprise Bill Rights protection fundamental personal freedoms. And guaranteed business, how small, compete—to assert vigor, imagination, devotion, ingenuity muscle muster." Topco Associates, 405 596, 610, 92 1126, 515 (1972). 394-397, 1127-1128. Brown bar relief. case's posture unnecessary consider applicability context suits litigants "[i]t appear complexion government." 417, n.48, 1139, n.48. Compare, 687-692, 1363-1365, (considering agreement), (holding invalidating law). 401-402, 1130-1131, confront remedies appropriate officials. 615, 3129, (Stewart, dissenting) (the "will state-regulated creation prospect massive damage liabilities' ") Posner, Proper Relationship Between Regulation Laws, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 693, (1974)). Railroad Retirement Fritz, 449 166, 176, n.10, 453, 460, 66 368. 585-592, 3115-3118 J.). explicit passages footnote, stated: cumulative carefully drafted references unequivocally differentiates official action, (even commanded State), hand." 591, n.24, 3118, n.24. repeated text: proscribes programs, narrow legality charged responsibility administering What persons variety implementing unknown unknowable charges made." 601, 3122 omitted quotation "Indeed, occur Act; raised Court." n.42, 3122, n.42. 361, 2691, ("[O]bviously, entirely agency, party"). undoubtedly One elements proof combination, conspiracy. argued 1, difficult allege product ease labeled "contract" solace regard. considerable feat gymnastics compensate person "injured property." Clayton 15, mandatory: "Any injured property anything forbidden recover threefold him sustained." 442-443, 1151-52, (BLACKMUN, era, complemented policies. compel behavior enterprise forbade interference marketplace. Strong, Economic Philosophy Lochner: Emergence, Embrasure Emasculation, Ariz.L.Rev. 419, (1973). remedy. Pre-empted unenforceable. conceived persons. 313; Aluminum 941-942, Joseph Seagram Sons, Hostetter, 384 35, 45-46, 86 1254, 1260-61, 336 (1966). Conversely, reliance insulate criteria. avoids determining prong test. seem odd Seeing recapture lost affairs, supported curiae. curious, indeed, sword, often

Category: 7