Document: 476 U.S. 409 106 S.Ct. 1922 90 L.Ed.2d 413 SQUARE D COMPANY and Big Building Supply Corp., Petitionersv.NIAGARA FRONTIER TARIFF BUREAU, INC., et al. No. 85-21. Argued March 3, 1986. Decided May 27, Syllabus Petitioner shippers brought class actions in Federal District Court against respondent motor carriers ratemaking bureau, alleging that during the years 1966 through 1981 respondents engaged a conspiracy, violation of Sherman Act, to fix rates for transporting freight between United States Canada without complying with an agreement filed by bureau with, approved by, Interstate Commerce Commission. Petitioners sought treble damages, measured difference allegedly higher they paid would have freely competitive market, also declaratory injunctive relief. The dismissed complaints on authority Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 260 156, 43 47, 67 L.Ed. 183, wherein it was held private shipper could not recover damages under § 7 Act connection ICC-filed tariffs. Appeals affirmed dismissal as treble-damages claims. Held: are entitled bring antitrust action. Keogh, supra. Pp. 415-423. (a) Nothing Reed-Bulwinkle or its legislative history indicates Congress intended change supplant rule. Similarly, there is no evidence enacting Motor Carrier 1980 And cases like Carnation Co. Pacific Westbound Conference, 383 213, 86 781, 15 709, emphasizing necessity strictly construe immunity collective activities from laws, do render invalid. 417-422. (b) various developments occurred since development actions, emergence precedents permitting even when available regulatory remedy, greater sophistication evaluating procedures which judicial proceedings can be stayed pending proceedings—are insufficient overcome strong presumption continued validity adheres interpretation statute. P. 423. 760 F.2d 1347 (CA2 1985), affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, BURGER, C.J., BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, dissenting opinion, post, p. 424. Douglas V. Rigler, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Lawrence G. Wallace, U.S., amicus curiae, support petitioners, special leave Court. Donald L. Flexner, respondents. Justice STEVENS 1 alleged Commission were fixed pursuant forbidden 26 Stat. 209, amended, U.S.C. seq. question presented whether subject liability action if allegation true. 2 requires us give careful consideration way has accommodated sometimes conflicting policies laws 49 10101 (1982 ed. Supp. II). Our analysis will include three components: (1) sufficiency complaint allegations light bare language relevant statutes; (2) impact Court's decision analogous 183; (3) extent rule case remains part our law today. 3 * Two class-action making parallel same six defendants Columbia then transferred Buffalo, New York, where similar pending. Government ultimately settled entry consent decree;1 after two had been consolidated, granted motion dismiss complaints. We therefore take well-pleaded facts true.2 4 Five Canadian transportation Canada. They regulation Ontario Highway Transport Board, (ICC). all members Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc. (NFTB), defendant. NFTB nonprofit corporation organized engage ICC.3 5 corporations utilized respondents' services ship goods many years. In their complaints, allege that, at least early continuing into 1981, conspiracy "to fix, raise maintain prices inhibit eliminate competition carrier Province Ontario, terms otherwise engaging conduct either ICC."4 6 five specific furtherance this conspiracy. First, senior management officials used "Principals Committee," authorized agreement, set competition.5 Second, controlled rate levels notice, publication, public hearing, recordkeeping requirements ICC regulations.6 Third, planned threats, retaliation, coercion independent actions.7 Fourth, actually pressures, retaliation interfere actions.8 Finally, still tariffs ICC.9 Because unlawful conduct, continue, petitioners large represent transport than market.10 seek difference, well 8 legal theory exempted antitrust, though charged ICC, required law. note file containing rates, make inspection, advance notice any changes rates.11 Although power determine those carriers, first instance.12 enacted 1948, expressly authorizes grant approval agreements establishing bureaus purpose setting collectively.13 joint such but statute limits exemption conform ICC.14 case, according agreement; hence exempt and, indeed, blatantly violated laws. 9 Under plain statutes, appear valid stated clearly within generally applicable laws;15 nothing moreover, necessarily precludes remedy specifically immunized Act.16 10 nevertheless case. 596 F.Supp. 153 (WDNY 1984). Second Circuit insofar judgment claims based remanded further hearing relief them opportunity amend state possible arising (1985). certiorari consider correctly applied barring tariffs, so, should overruled. 474 815, 57, 88 47 II 11 shipper's prohibited Act. among executives railroad companies "which competing carriers," 160, 48. "higher thus eliminated." Ibid. claimed previously effect. 12 plea, averred every complained hearings participated, That established "reasonable non-discriminatory," id., 161, 49, did foreclose possibility slightly lower zone reasonableness found lawful Nor ICC's require rejection Keogh's contention combination railroads Act.17 shipper, "recover because he lost benefit lower, which, enjoyed." Id., 162, 49. 13 reasoned had, effect, lawfulness defendant's rates,18 right published tariff. It concluded "injured his business property" meaning paying ICC. Brandeis explained: 14 "Section Anti-Trust gives one who 'injured property.' Injury implies right. rights respect Unless until suspended aside, made, purposes, rate, shipper. defined tariff cannot varied enlarged contract tort carrier. Texas R.R. Mugg, 202 242, 628, 50 1011; Louisville Nashville Maxwell, 237 94, 35 494, 59 853; Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Ry. Robinson, 233 173, 34 556, 58 901; Dayton Iron Cincinnati, Orleans 239 446, 36 137, 60 375; Erie Stone, 244 332, 37 633, 61 1173. affected third party. Compare Pittsburgh, St. Louis Fink, 250 577, 40 63 1151. This stringent prevails, paramount Congress—prevention unjust discrimination—might defeated." 163, unlike challenged formal before allowed go were, however, duly submitted, sense lawful. holding follows may action.19 question, then, we continue Keogh. III 16 Petitioners, supported Solicitor General States, ask overrule submit implicitly rejected 1980, Pub.L. 96-296, 94 793; effect created implied reasoning inconsistent later cases, particularly 709 (1966); rationales longer valid. 17 argue delineating activities,20 repudiated view, proper read supplanting narrow, express 18 explains enacted, part, response Georgia Pennsylvania 324 439, 65 716, 89 1051 (1945).21 restating although suit obtain employed railroads.22 absolute activities. 19 history, other tariff-related claims, while governmental rise actions. On contrary, House Report except creating new exemption, bill left unchanged "so far now applicable."23 Particularly reveals clear congressional awareness Keogh,24 supporting petitioners' position, fact addressed area undisturbed lends powerful viability. 20 policy promoting industry reflected 1980.25 assume case—indeed, correct arguing unwise matter policy—but true must presumed fully cognizant statutory scheme,26 significant over half century, see fit carefully reexamined 1980. pointed provision indicating intention overturn longstanding construction;27 harmony general inadequate formidable task. 21 Petitioners' reliance (1966), unavailing. Carnation, evaporated milk association shipping west coast Philippine Islands. contended Shipping 1916 repealed rate-making industry. Section create Maritime Commission, obtained approval. structure entire demonstrated intent free unanimously argument, explaining: 22 "We recently said: 'Repeals implication strongly disfavored, only repugnancy provisions.' Philadelphia National Bank, 374 321, 350-351 [83 1715, 1734-1735, 915]. long recognized fundamental national economic lightly enactment scheme particular aspects more provisions wholly inapplicable have, therefore, declined regulations repeal contain accommodation Agricultural Acts. See, e.g., supra." 217-218, 874. 23 point out scrutiny simply occur regulated industry, exemptions construed disfavored. Nevertheless, agreed viewed "antitrust immunity" conclude rendered For represents construction consistently refused disturb, revisiting 24 disagree, view issue properly characterized "immunity" question. both criminal sanctions equitable award claiming submitted to, product violation. Such different creation immunity,28 makes challenge role doubtful.29 25 developments, discussed Appeals, seem undermine some Brandeis' opinion—the might alleviate expressed concern about unfair rebates;30 remedies available;31 mitigate fears speculative nature damages;32 proceedings.33 Even these cast reasons light, guidepost intersection interstate commerce regimes 61/2 decades. subsequent procedural does minimize essential element context repeatedly acted area. IV Judge Friendly's characteristically thoughtful incisive suggested prepared conclude, decades decided statute.34 As himself observed, decade decision, commenting stability interpretation: "Stare decisis usually wise most matters, important . commonly true, error serious concern, provided correction legislation."35 especially reluctant reject seen careful, intense, sustained attention. If overruling rule, come Congress, rather 27 28 so ordered. 29 dissenting. 30 Friendly cogently comprehensively explained why 183 (1922), obsolete He overruled, I am persuaded analysis. dissent. decree enjoins "harassing, discouraging, coercing, threatening withdraw, forbear filing, modify said carrier's actual rates," discussing "within body agreement." Inc., 1984-2 Trade Cases ¶ 66,167, pp. 66,533-66,535 See Hishon King Spalding, 467 69, 73, 104 2229, 2233, 81 (1984); McClain Real Estate Bd. Orleans, 444 232, 246, 100 502, 511, 62 441 (1980); Hospital Trustees Rex Hospital, 425 738, 746, 96 1848, 1853, 48 338 (1976); Scheuer Rhodes, 416 236, 1683, 1686, (1974); Conley Gibson, 355 41, 45-46, 78 99, 101-102, 80 (1957). Inc.—Agreement, 297 I.C.C. 494 (1955). Square complaint, 22, App. 11; 19, 24. 23(a), 12; 20(a), 23(b), 20(b), 23(c), 20(c), 23(d), 20(d), 25. 23(e), 20(e), &Par; 24(a)-(d), 12-13; 21(a)-(c), 16, Joint (citing 10762); 13, (same). 10704); 17, 5b, codified 10706(b)(2)); 14, currently codified, "[i]f [Interstate Commerce] approves made carried conditions section Clayton (15 12), apply parties persons carrying 10706(b)(2). ("Every contract, form trust otherwise, restraint trade several foreign nations, declared illegal"). n. "All reasonable non-discriminatory. Los Angeles Switching Case, 234 294, 814, 1319. But non-discriminatory illegal; redress injunction 4, forfeiture 6. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 290, 540, 41 1007, Traffic 171 505, 25, 259. not, seems, bar Government." 161-162, "A illegal result What determined Regulate Commerce. latter act exaction liable 'person injured thereby full amount consequence violation' together attorney's fee. Sections provide recovery federal court. here resulted unreasonably high discriminatory, sustained, whatever nature, recoverable proceedings. Ohio Valley Tie 242 288, 120, 305. Can whom exacted, additional Act? Meeker Lehigh 162 Fed. 354 (1908). Law given injury results fixing illegal, too assumed where, here, force collected carrier?" brief, involve type covert violations here. Brief 10-11. susceptible narrow reading: "Rather limiting investigated broadly overcharges whenever filed." F.2d, 1351. ch. 491, 472, 10706(b). H.R.Rep. 1100, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., (1947) "[t]he suit" emphasizing, "These caused grave having direct interest transportation, situation threat long-standing practices developed cooperation proved worth"). 1356-1360 (reviewing Act). think alone shown exist. 210. barred enforcing held, purposes trade. aside precedent dispose main prayer bill, stressed asks injunction." 453, 724. "The reported leaves applicable, arrangements upon finding reason granted." Cong.2d (emphasis added). 1359-1360 attention out, "legislative beyond bounds 10706(b)(3), wanted forces motor-carrier tariffs." American Trucking Assns., 354, 367, 2458, 2465, 282 (1984). 96-1069, 27-28 (1980), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 2283. 126 Cong.Rec. 7777 (1980) (statement Sen. Cannon). Cannon University Chicago, 677, 696-697, 99 1946, 1957-1958, 560 (1979) ("It always appropriate elected representatives, citizens, know law"). Director, OWCP Perini North River Associates, 459 297, 319, 103 634, 648, 74 465 (1983); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith Curran, 456 353, 379, 102 1825, 1839, 72 182 (1982); Albernaz 450 333, 341, 101 1137, 1143, 275 (1981). respects, 356-357, S.Ct., 2460, address affect reworking characterizing issue, Nation's Mitsubishi Motors Corp. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 614, 635, 105 3346, 3358, 87 (1985) ("The wielded litigant chief tool enforcement scheme, posing crucial deterrent potential violators"). Granting due respect, critical distinction limited nonavailability remedy. 1, supra, unchallenged remand highlight distinction: reach holding, implicated 215, ---. Indeed, 1363 ("Although [Federal Commission] effects account approving conference 46 mandate regulate designed FMC regard"). 1352 (discussing litigation operating discriminatory rebate). 31 1354 (noting subsequently activity despite existence administrative agency activity"). 32 1353 Supreme argument plaintiff able pass customers context"). 33 ibid. (referring "the directed suspension referral issues ICC" need propriety rate). NLRB Longshoremen, 61, 84, 3045, 3058, ("[W]e follow normal stare interpretation"); Illinois Brick Illinois, 431 720, 736, 97 S.Ct 2061, 2069, 52 707 (1977) bear mind considerations weigh heavily construction, legislation"). Levi, An Introduction Legal Reasoning, U.Chi.L.Rev. 501, 540 (1948) doctrine finality prior decisions course followed. descriptive. More field precedent, served limit freedom marks hand constitutional other"). Burnet Coronado Oil Gas 285 393, 406, 443, 447, 76 815 (1932) (dissenting).

Category: 7