Document: 428 U.S. 579 96 S.Ct. 3110 49 L.Ed.2d 1141 Lawrence CANTOR, dba Selden Drugs Company, etc., Petitioner,v.The DETROIT EDISON COMPANY. No. 75-122. Argued Jan. 14, 1976. Decided July 6, Syllabus Respondent, a private utility that is the sole supplier of electricity in southeastern Michigan, also furnishes its residential customers, without additional charge, with almost 50% Of most frequently used standard-size light bulbs under longstanding practice antedating state regulation electric utilities. This marketing for approved, as part respondent's rate structure, by Michigan Public Service Commission, and may not be changed unless until respondent files, Commission approves, new tariff. Petitioner, retail druggist selling bulbs, brought an action against respondent, claiming it was using monopoly power distribution to restrain competition sale violation Sherman Act. The District Court entered summary judgment petitioner, holding on authority Parker v. Brown, 317 341, 63 307, 87 L.Ed. 315, Commission's approval light-bulb practices exempted from federal antitrust laws, Appeals affirmed. Held: Neither Michigan's present tariff nor fact light-bulb-exchange program terminated filed, sufficient basis implying exemption laws program. Pp. 592-598. (a) State's participation decision have exchange so dominant unfair hold party responsible conduct implementing decision, but rather sufficiently significant require conduct, like comparable unregulated businesses, conform applicable law. 592-595. (b) poses no necessary conflict requirement activities competitive markets satisfy standards. Merely because certain subject does necessarily mean must inconsistent standards, but, even assuming inconsistency, this would interest inevitably subordinated State's; moreover, Congress did intend apply areas economy primarily regulated State, enforcement foreclosed essentially area such market. 595-598. 513 F.2d 630, reversed remanded. Burton I. Weinstein, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Solicitor Gen. Robert H. Bork, Washington, D. C., United States, amicus curiae, special leave Court. George Reycraft respondents. Howard J. Trienens, Bell Telephone Co., et al., amici Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court.** 1 In held Act violated displacing raisins. case we decide whether rationale immunizes which has been approved State continued while remains effective. 2 pervasively regulates within given substantial impact otherwise business distributing bulbs. Assuming, arguendo, unreasonably restrained trade market, Court1 Appeals2 held, Parker, laws. Because questioned applicability situation, granted certiorari, 423 821, 34, 46 38. We now reverse. 3 claims Act.3 Discovery argument connection defendant's motion were limited stipulation issue raised only facts pertinent assume, opining, exist. To extent are disputed, resolve doubts favor petitioner since him. first describe "lamp program," next discuss then consider should extended cover case. Finally, comment briefly authorities relies. 4 * Detroit Edison distributes about five million people Michigan. area, electricity, supplies consumers they use frequently.4 Customers billed consume, pay separate charge Respondent's rates, including omission any approval. Respondent must, therefore, continue lamp-exchange files Commission. 5 or predecessor, following providing amounts customers 1886.5 1909 began utilities.6 1916 filed setting forth lamp-supply Thereafter, tariffs included implicit 1964 eliminate large commercial customers.7 elimination service became effective general reduction those customers. 6 1972 provided 18,564,381 at cost $2,835,000.8 accounting amount portion records reflect direct profit result purpose program, according executives, increase consumption electricity. effect foreclose segment market.9 7 A statute10 vests "complete jurisdiction regulate all public utilities . ." statute confers express "to fares, fees, charges, services, rules, conditions service, other matters pertaining formation, operation, direction utilities." advises us heart function " 'furnishing (of) production light, heat .' "11 8 unregulated. creating contains reference Nor, far advised, authorize business. Legislature, ever made specific investigation desirability possible Other do follow their charge. maintain not, implement statewide policy relating infer neutral question should, 9 Although there statute, rule, prevent abandoning merely filing proper adjustment nevertheless apparent existing effect, abandon violating order, therefore It has, permitted carry out required appropriate received 10 Petitioner named official litigation claim representative acted unlawfully. II 11 Brown considered applied action. way presented argued sheds character state-action concept embraced holding. 12 plaintiff, producer packer raisins; defendants California Director Agriculture officials charged responsibility administering 1940 crop restrict among growers prices raisins packers.12 Nevertheless, Court, argue had He sought injunction theory interfered his constitutional right engage interstate commerce. he attacking constitutionality regulations having applicability, three-judge convened.13 With one judge dissenting, Commerce Clause injunctive relief.14 13 defendant took appeal Probable noted April 1942, heard oral May 5, 1942. meantime, 27, Georgia "person" meaning § entitled treble damages. Evans, 316 159, 62 972, 86 1346. 14 Presumably concerned relationship between sovereign States immediately set reargument15 and, own motion, requested General file brief Amicus curiae directed parties rendered invalid Act.16 15 supplemental Attorney California17 advanced three arguments upholding contended (1) though treble-damage never intended provisions Act; (2) event, violate statute; (3) evidence offered sustained theory.18 16 take appellants' argument. Act, expressly disclaimed law.19 Later drew important distinction economic taken itself pursuant permitting requiring individuals prohibited clearly illegal recognized different problem existed respect itself.20 latter 17 aside discussing issue, Chief Stone addressed General. programs organized persons illegal, legislative command Act.21 18 narrow unnecessary agree disagree General's view law "would void."22 Court's avoided color 19 Unquestionably term "state action" broadly encompass individual supported some custom. Such broad term, familiar civil rights litigation,23 however, what described opinion.He carefully selected language plainly officials.24 20 case, unlike utility. No agencies Conversely, citizen company decided itself, person prohibitions. Since before call into legality act agents, controlled decision. III 21 asked exempt Two quite reasons might support rule. First, if done nothing more than obey sovereign, unjust conclude thereby offended Second, already regulating economy, arguable superimpose additional, perhaps conflicting, regulatory mechanism. these two separately. 22 Arguendo, unacceptable impose statutory liability who command. assumption if, indeed, actual For typically cases kind involve blend decisionmaking.25 authorization,26 approval,27 encouragement,28 participation29 restrictive immunity. And Schwegmann Bros. Calvert Corp., 341 384, 71 745, 95 1035, invalidated plaintiff's entire resale price maintenance throughout Louisiana imposed restraint retailers signed fair agreements.30 23 each initiation attack involved mixture decisionmaking. notwithstanding exercised freedom choice enable consequences 24 discloses product both participated. could can doubt option have, respondent's, Commission's.31 Indeed, initiated years agency created. There conclusion law.32 Accordingly, it, record unfairness. 25 Apart fairness well, standards being standard. Amici forcefully contend standard legislation fundamentally "public interest" widely enforced agencies, essential teaching agencies. 26 least why unacceptable. standards; second, accept finally, assume market 27 examples very government control avoid unrestrained competition. Agricultural programs, character. But suppress On contrary, assumes firm natural controls protect consumer exploitation.33 logical inconsistency meet criteria insofar exercising powers comply engages activity economy.34 Thus, standards.35 28 mere possibility insufficient hardly broader laws.36 Therefore, situations existence give rise implied exemption, ascertaining scope surely severe legislation. 29 consistently refused find gave determining order make work, "and minimum necessary."37 30 application inexorably requires rejection claim. scheme conversely, construed outlaw reason believe will longer able effectively. Regardless outcome utilities' entirely unimpaired. 31 neither program.38 IV 32 dissenting voices legitimate concern companies "massive damage liabilities." oft-repeated criticism imprecise consequent difficulty predicting certainty various situations.39 far-reaching value basic our law, enabled withstand past.40 33 relevance ways. If hazard enhanced regulation, engaged anticompetitive reliance justified understanding immune punitive aspects remedy appropriate. circumstances 34 When takes form proposed company, increased company's risk maintained after regulated. defense exposure liability. 35 Nor fairly led immunity nature affirmative assumed unlawful. unlawful 36 recent consideration subject, pointed precision "this so-called exemption." Goldfarb Virginia Bar, 421 773, 788, 2004, 2014, 44 572. explained anti-competitive acting "threshold inquiry" type meant proscribe.41 Certainly careful read guarantee compliance automatically confer 37 makes much obvious implicitly California's raisin-marketing That is, course, perfectly true. tested minister lawfully. proscribes persons, What sort variety unknown unknowable charges made.42 Even unlawful, conformed Unless court answered question, occasion exemption. 38 justifiably rely either Eastern R. Conf. Noerr Motors, 365 127, 81 523, 464, Parker.43 concerted railroad opposing favorable plaintiff motor carriers 39 Moreover, implies approve proposal tariff, implemented revised conferring conduct. passage quoted dissent, Post, 622, sets up dichotomy governmental action, contrasted cites Rock Royal Co-op., 307 533, 59 993, 83 1446, former Act.44 passing significance little proposal. qualify categorical statement "a authorizing them declaring lawful." U.S., 351, S.Ct., 314. Yet dissent allow every grant precisely order.45 40 STEWART's possesses virtue ours not. announces simple rule easily approves orders it. matter commerce, how peripheral casual interests go treble-damages wholesome simplicity complex economy. judgment, heavily outweighed host exemptions wholly unrelated interest. tempting try fashion govern damages future presenting issues, adhere settled giving concrete process case-by-case adjudication controversies. 41 yet complaint alleged remanded determination proceedings 42 Reversed 43 CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring except Parts opinion. I concur agree, 315 (1943), logically suits officials. interpreting Parke heretofore focused challenged Activity, upon identity Parties suit. 45 "The threshold inquiry proscribe Activity sovereign." 790, 2015, 572 (1975) (emphasis added). Parker's simply nonliability officials, County Bar Association's claimed ended recognition organization voluntary association agency. 2014. Yet, proceeded treat contention "prompted" purposes." Ibid. 47 reading Part case; address precise need focus situation where addition powers," Ante, 596, purports, independent purpose, utility's separate, markets. Today correctly concludes: 48 Neutral program." 585 undifferentiated sanction ancillary serve policy. 50 BLACKMUN, judgment. 51 holds sanctioned, required, put beyond reach opposite proposition ground affirmed dismissal suit, reversed. My approach, somewhat 52 As principal Act's pre-emptive points out, congressional intent. denies could, wished, override whose operation subvert free discerning intent, less assistance history dissent. true framers expressed left regulation. quotes several expressions. 632-634. statements reveals, then-prevailing lacked Power, Clause, domain States. greatly expanded power. Arguably, remained confined outlines thought exist 1890 broadly, attempted so. bridge crossed, expand along commerce Hospital Building Co. Rex Trustees, 425 738, 743 n.2, 1848, 1852, 338 (1976), cited. 53 Our directly confront explicitly address: expanding ambit bring law? seems me crossed. Distillers 1035 (1951), liquor agreements parties, wholesale suppliers. unenforceable; plausible pre-empted Act.1 Northern Securities 193 197, 436, 679 (1904), same effect. attacked lawful corporation New Jersey. nonetheless extent, Jersey forced way.2 suppose degree state-law pre-emption fundamental own, combinations kinds sanctioned contract offend overridden.3 54 Were statutes complete sway, found 1937 pass Miller-Tydings Fair Trade Stat. 693, amending specifically exempting latter's U.S.C. 1. instances Congress' state-sanctioned schemes response Schwegmann, see H.R.Rep. 1437, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 1-2, 1952 passed McGuire bill, 66 632, extending nonsigners. §§ 45(a)(2) (5). similar enactment McCarran-Ferguson 1945, "any enacted insurance," provision statutes, specified date law." 1012(b).4 These grants seem me. stated Borden 308 188, 201, 60 182, 189, 84 181 (1939), construing Marketing Agreement 1937, "(i)f desired further immunity, doubtless said so." 55 particular fall despite imprimatur say, generally pre-empts answer difficult extent. fear easy solutions, suggest themselves. 56 cannot decisive, example, goes require, authorize, question. accepted prerequisite (1975), alone sufficient. whole Could obedience fixed arrangement. Similarly, contract, adherence corporate combination, well "required" 57 decisive actors State. difference arrangement (1943) (and properly think, below), disapproved Schwegmann. invitation anything do. Securities, here. sure, rough justice, appearance simplicity, based actually justice prove illusory rule's application. Every initiated, way, beneficiaries. scarcely sense immunize powerful enough speak through representatives, or, matter, stifle speech threat destroy likely interplay impossible identify "initiator." 58 final ostensibly simple, solution wanting insist articulation conscientious intent scheme, therefor. solution, particularly (at years) actively tie-in, articulated justification lead perverse results. too plain explication vulnerable; questionable immunized proponents skill influence generate history. And, deciding "affirmative articulation" matter. now, reason, taking potential harms outweigh benefits. treated alike. figures powerfully calculus harm benefit. If, lies protection health safety, strength attested enactment. assess justifications enactments equal review, (as expect professional licensing fee-setting schemes, cf. Olsen Smith, 195 332, 52, 224 (1904)), reluctant unreasonable. strong exists substituted forces competition, ends achieved institutes improve performance fostering efficient resource allocation low assailed. One Edison's monopoly; tendency excessive prices, instance crystallize, applied, Per se rules enactments, classic monopoly, shrink constitutionally mandated task, often conflicting balancing implicated assuring when truly conflict, prevail. 61 dissent's fears score appear exaggerated. benefit general, courts acquainted field. assessing determine prevail supreme dictates courts. interferes citizens searching review See, E. g., Dean Milk Madison, 340 349, 354, 295, 298, 329 (1951) (state restriction milk locally processed "reasonable adequate alternatives (were) available," interests); Southern Pacific Arizona, 325 761, 770-784, 65 1515, 1521-1527, 89 1915 (1945) train lengths "the (safety) nation adequate, economical railway transportation service"). By one. tie-in presents usual dangers principally extend sells better ones all. See P. Areeda, Antitrust Analysis 569-570 (2d ed. 1974). appears unjustified. originated means promote use, (rather optional, promotional lightbulb sale) end 19th century, laying promotion greater today goal. justify savings, assertedly cheaper commercially available. Brief 7-9, 41-42. again, savings. force someone else. indication bulb fit socket another, crucial successful operation. Conceivably, aim extension born preference supplied ending objective hint ineffective. appears, marketing, production, implicate beset problems instability flaws market.5 says "essentially unregulated," conclusion. conceivable show, evidence, certainly yet.6 STEWART, whom POWELL REHNQUIST join, dissenting. 64 commission, liable engaging which, requirements obligated perform. respectfully unprecedented disruption state-regulated Nation creation prospect massive liabilities"1 payable ultimately companies' starting point analyzing 315. While create "so-called state- exemption"2 laws,3 cited "(Sherman) prohibit imposing government." plurality itself," 591, sued trivialize overruling it,4 flies face decisions interpreted doctrine, unsupported sources sources, rare analysis positions briefs submitted play role written opinions.5 contrary permit "plain meaning" qualified overridden "legislative history" e., contending parties. useful emanates source thus probative draftsmen. views adversary bear analogous product. 67 assuming, look behind Supra, think distorted curiae. reargument "whether 587 n. 16. phrasing indicates suit 68 understood issue. notes, posed arguments. rested fails acknowledge straightforward pre-empt intrastate commerce.6 69 states "Solicitor argument." 588. says, "expressly assertion, p. : 70 '(T)he here accomplishment objectives statute.' 589 19. indeed correct, briefing Act," sentence, "(a) superseded irrespective administrators prosecution paramount enactment."7 strenuous relevant section Prorate Act.8 72 clear misread Brown. effected part, California. resolved "(t)he adopting enforcing prorate agreement conspiracy establish undertake prohibit." 352, 73 notion "action 589, "narrow ante, 590, refuted subsequent doctrine. 74 instance, predicated attempt trucking industry.9 ruling "where monopolization valid opposed out." 136, 529. viewed "equally associating together persuade legislature executive produce monopoly." ruling, substantially impair actions operate trade." Id., 137, Surely, arise lobbying restricting governments restraints, fortiori parties' exercise States' noted, 75 Litigation testing limits of" Goldfarbv. 572, fixing practiced respondents "required sovereign. 350-352, 313-314 .." 2015. exemption," "cannot Supreme Rules respondent. Respondents' arguments, most, constitute complemented ethical codes. purposes. n that, puts 'prompted' action; rather, compelled 790-791, plurality's state-compelled drafted Opinion. 76 Noerr, unerringly disposition stages. proposes investigates rejects Third, provide accord modification. distinct activities: obeys terms. second terms Goldfarb.10 77 effectively overrule body post-Parker Noerr. reduced trivial run entities, two-part test creates subjecting "unjust." draftsmen "superimpose" damages, THE accedes test, "purports, markets." 604. majority deemed "ancillary" goals.11 78 backward glance concludes "participation" incorporate "sufficiently significant," "unjust" concluding "like businesses 594. distinguish exemptive mandatory adopted behest unilateral flatly pointedly rejected construction disqualify position financially interested" deprive valuable information time, petition importance them." 139, 530.12 79 Today's penalize strike crippling blow acknowledge, dependent active propose adopted, rejected, modified commissions. escape unpredictable arm Infra, page, playing possum "option" terminology, 594 -- tempted just posing serious 80 apparently comes exceed vaguely defined "sufficient choice," purports aimed answering "Congress regulated" 595. reveals factors pays heed Rather, vehicle ad hoc judicial determinations substantive validity goals, closely resembles discarded doctrine due process. Ferguson Skrupa, 372 726, 1028, 93. delineation proceeds follows. "fairness" states, "at reasons" enjoy "First," observes, "merely abstract proposition, "tie" sales liability, absence regulation.13 "even amplify follows: 82 'and necessary.' claim." 596-598 (footnotes omitted). 85 rests mistaken premise. "implied immunity" employed reconcile cannot, rationally, employ species repeals implication disfavored, arguably Federal involved. 'Implied repeal' 'not favored,' 597-598, 37, impossible. U.S.Const. Art. VI, cl. 2. closer scrutiny inapposite repeal" window dressing radically Gordon York Stock Exchange, 422 659, 2598, 463, Philadelphia National Bank, 374 321, 1715, 915. Those turned exclusively issues "necessity" "centrality" provisions. Instead, given, interpretative effort accommodating bodies second-guessing judgments concerning statute. approach qualitatively different. "free" condition prepared determination: Imperative functioning industry." 597 "if Function Almost unimpaired." 598 88 emphasized passages shows interpretation judiciary substitute legislatures administrative 'sufficiently central,' conception content 'purposes,' Ibid., suffer derives presumably mandate becomes divested references repeal restatement third rationale, phrases "(F)inally, bulbs." raises last erred Congress, enacting vitiate performed therewith. complying narrowly "typica(l) assum(ption) (utility) monopoly" "natural powers" "business economy." 595-596 Furthermore, central' shield 37. Delphic unaided artificially raising Raisin congruent boundaries power, wrongly decided. 90 conclusively floor debates House Report reveal, commentator fully clause" 1890.14 many ways, historic only, "permitted notions power."15 Members intention regarding interaction 91 perception limitations coupled intrude "domestic" stated: 92 "It observed bill subjects Congress. 93 "No invade occupy doubtful grounds. system devised effectually evils oppression trusts monopolies. deal, generally, legislate foreign nations. 94 follows, exerted secure suppression restraints Whatever enact authority, shall supplement auxiliary authority."16 reveal "g(o) Constitution permits go,"17 words Senator Sherman, conjoined "interfere with" efforts "prevent limit State."18 Far demonstrating preventing controlling monopolies, show goal efforts, themselves restricted geographic "Each deal combination Government reaching world. include ."19 Indeed pre-existing forbidding model legislation: declares contracts policy, null void. announce principle applies old well-recognized principles common complicated Government. Similar Union void."20 noteworthy jurisprudence formed coexisted industries long antedated had, prior passage, upheld attack.21 integral guidance barring undisturbed 1890. For, spokesmen stated, domestic "invade 97 previously sovereignty full Subsequent "jurisdictional" 743, 338, therein. decisions, possessed Act,22 allowed retroactive enlarged power.23 98 expansion jurisdictional advent Under original in-state manufacturing, C. Knight 156 1, 249, 325. static, rarely, ever, arisen. 679, operative premise "Anti-Trust prescribe(d) Rule Interstate international (not commerce,)" 337, 457. former, latter, probably regardless "(n)o can, mode, project across continent, exerting over lawfully established commerce." 345-346, 460. 99 remain static. it: "By decided, clause substantially. development 'affection doctrine' purely events" state-mandated arrangements agricultural services "could events requisite commerce."24 created 1890, falling rea would, transformed generous namely "retroactive" transgression 100 clarified Goldfarb, represents best accommodation limiting post-1890 displace coincides come "compelled" Thus refined, performs salutary isolating strongest, areas.25 101 Beyond disregarding disrupt laws.26 alter contra categories permissibly attached proviso enforce All bound executed retailer embodied version standing alone, seemed scheme. 593. struck balance category state-imposed restraints. determined permissible later, specific, expression purpose.27 102 alteration all, continuing defer service. 201(a) Power 824(a), provides "Federal (is) States." 103 ignores substitutes facet thinks unwise great importance. freewheeling simulacrum rest ago. 93.28 contemplates selective interdiction measures "central" range goals "imperative" judiciary. 104 Henceforth, peril successfully divine countless interrelated "imperative." guesses wrong, subjected penalty ** joined BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL. 392 F.Supp. 1110 (ED Mich.1974). 630 (CA6 1975). Petitioner's asserts violates 2, Clayton 14. constitutes tying violative seeks permanently enjoining purchase electrical energy. behalf similarly situated, moved class Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23(c). distribute fluorescent lights high-intensity discharge lamps; types included, share 23%. practice, "such quantities needed" permanent fixtures; thereafter, replaces customers' burned proportion estimated lighting. customer incurs time furnished him, normally turns burned-out obtain supply. Mich.Comp.Laws 460.551, 460.559 (1970). Apparently relatively lighting bulb-exchange amount, $2,363,328 paid manufacturers purchases; $471,672 represented costs incurred personnel facilities carrying According save $3 year, receive $2,835,000 $6 460.6 11; 460.501 authorizes establishment, commodities produced state, packers. declared 'conserve wealth State' 'prevent waste products' state." 346, 311. 'adversely affecting' although speaks 'economic stability' 'agricultural waste' price, evident state' maintaining 'without unreasonable profits producers.' 10." 355, Title 2281 enjoined Moody Flowers, 387 97, 101, 1544, 1547, 643. Article I, 8, 3, provides: Nations, Indian Tribes Adjustment amended, collaboration Department Agriculture, aided loans Commodity Credit Corporation recommended Secretary Agriculture. portions Stone's 357, 358-359, 368, 316, 317-318, 322, mentioned discussion Journal Monday, 11, provided: "No. 1040. W. B. appellants, Porter L. cause restored docket October next. counsel questions desires, participate Journal, O.T. 1941, 252. Honorable Earl Warren, later index brief, outlined words: Anti-Trust raisin program... "1. Is Act?... "2. Does seasonal circumscribed reason... "(b) anti-trust laws... "3. action?... 64" At define governments. precludes sponsored states. Sections 'persons,' word 'person,' Section 7, connections least, state. 159 (62 1346). "But statute." "A permitting, requiring, dealers commodity combine supply raise shipped regulation." combination. derived efficacy become suggests officers agents legislature. dual Constitution, subtract unexpressed nullify state's lightly attributed mention such, gives "There suggestion sponsor prevented 'business combinations.' Cong.Rec. 2562, 2457; (Id.,) 2459, 2461. attempts monopolize corporations, abundantly prohibit. 344-(3)45, 54, 55, 224; Lowenstein C.C., F. 908, 910." 313. 15, supra. Monroe Pape, 167, 172-187, 473, 476-484, 492; Adickes Kress & 398 144, 188-234, 1598, 1619-1643, 142 (Brennan, J., part). three-page Each chosen supported, state," legislature," 350, 313; agents," (4) such," (5) (6) action," (7) committee," (8) (9) machinery establishing (10) "it adopts ," (11) exercises authority," (12) finally (13) "as cumulative unequivocally differentiates hand, (even commanded State), hand. formulation effectuation proration referendum prescribed number producers effectuating corporation, Congress." 460, 679. "by "Respondents' 791, Continental Ore Carbide 370 690, 1404, 777; 313 450, 1064, 1453, supra, ineffective nonsigners restraint. Quite Douglas forbidden parallel said: "Therefore, compels demands forbids. 315." 389, 748. recently Jackson Metropolitan 419 345, 449, 477: detail institute body. Approval commission request utility, weight side ordering transmute 'state action.' failure overturn amounted Pennsylvania authorized desired. initiative doing action' purposes Fourteenth Amendment." 456. (Footnote omitted.) underlying whereas adopt Stewart Otter Tail 410 366, 1022, 359, "very rates inevitability place competition." Commenting repeatedly '(r)epeal (of laws) regarded (Act) 391, 1036, quoting Silver 373 1246, 1257, 389. stronger relies commissions stock Exchange 1934. inapplicability manifest Stewart's today, inapplicable defendants. An 'plain repugnancy provisions.' Nat. 1734, reserve oversight initially exchanges, attack. 'necessary work.' 692-693, 2616. comparably imperative industry. Supra. Recent "aspect agency's central enabling (regulatory scheme) Robinson, Developments: 1975, Record N.Y.C.B.A. 38, 57-58 (1976). Assn. Dealers, 694, 719-720, 2427, 2443, 486, out: "Implied favored, convincing showing system. E, 348, 1715; 197-206, (1939)." are, consistent "cardinal rule," favored. Posadas City 296 497, 503, 351. violated. prompted introduction bills award discretionary mandatory. Committee Study Laws 378-380 (1955). also, H.R. 978, 85th 1st Sess. (1957); 190, 87th (1961). "As charter freedom, generality adaptability desirable detailed definitions work injury enterprise particularization defeat loopholes escape. restrictions imposes mechanical artificial. Its phrases, attain objects, reasonableness. They vigilance detection frustration unduly course seek delusive liberty making normal adoption reasonable injurious destructive sound basis." Appalachian Coals, Inc. 288 344, 359-360, 471, 474, 825. 307; Carbide, 706-707, 777 (1962)." occur Actually secondarily Parker. 136 "We accept, below recognized, landmark Standard Oil (221 502, 619), forbids monopolizations created, attempted, acts 'individuals corporations.' (Rock footnote 135-136, 528. largely dubious steps implementation lawful, equally lawful. Schwegmann: absent again: "(W)hen forbids." 386, Company thoroughly canvassed 344-351, 459-462. "that endow citizens, disobey national manifested legal 462. passing, cast sidelong related patent explicit Et seq., purport infringe monopoly. Lear, Adkins, 395 653, 1902, 610 (1969); Sears, Roebuck Stiffel 376 225, 784, 661 (1964); Compco Corp. Day-Brite Lighting, 234, 779, 669 (1964). reaction Underwriters Assn., 322 1162, 1440 (1944), insurance "commerce" "greatly States," bringing halt "experimentation investigation" area. vigorously endorsed Governors commissioners "almost Department, sure: "Parker dealt conformity with, supplementary to, Obviously, category." S.Rep. 1112, 78th (1944). 20, 79th 1-3 (1945); 873, (1943); 143, (1945). text reached Wildly fluctuating prime candidate collective interrupts badly needed stability; close supervision, reasonable. disapprove plurality, stressing intimates sued, agree. stand true, unambiguous point. choose seemingly nn. prefer keeping holdings cases. (to restraint) it." 594-595. does. below, petitioner's completely barred tie-in. confine leaving lower remand, observations: recovery relief. danger emphasis unfairly "responsible," theory, legal, committed invalid. hope remand allowing wherever comport "responsible" choice, grounds Posner, Proper Relationship Between Regulation Laws, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 728-732 (1974). extremely during period lag regulatee attempting Change accumulating 728 progenitor 224, relied challenge Texas pilots operating port Galveston prohibiting duly commissioned pilotage "repugnant commerce," 339, 53: business, exclude others rendering denial regulate, appoint perform duties devolving propositions referred ultimate aspect contention, void want unwise. imply vested, judicially afforded denying plenary seen premises." 344-345, 55. circumvented expedient suing "anticompetitive" runs, empty formalism, wrong BLACKMUN sees "no 613 that. BLACKMUN's "rule reason" Result route holding, "reasonable" impliedly irrelevant. am puzzled willingness emasculate indicated vitality Term. Pharmacy Bd. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 748, 770, 1817, 1829-1830, 346. step well-settled stare decisis Applicable statutes. Edelman Jordan, 415 651, 671 1347, 1359, 662. preclude reconsideration "aberration" "anomaly," Flood Kuhn, 407 258, 282, 2099, 2112, 728, re-examination called dispositions appeals. Hicks Miranda, 345 2281, 2290, 223; Port Authority Bondholders Protective Comm. Authority, 259, 262 (CA2). "sister sovereignties," Supplemental Appellants "supreme" legislating "within respective spheres." still 'commerce,' nations states." 35-37. Incorporating preceding 1938 proceeding intends supersede suspend police manifested." added "(s)uch serves powers, inhibition penalties Congressional action." 38-39. placed proscriptions applicable, solely quotations dovetailed themes: themes primary. Near appeared passage: "To prohibition powers. emphatically 'it so, manifested.' 47-48 (footnote drawn, labor context. political subdivision thereof prohibitions Labor Relations 151 seq. NLRB Natural Gas Utility Dist., 402 600, 1746, 206. San Diego Unions Garmon, 359 236, 775; Garner Teamsters, 346 485, 161, 228. statement: Curiae 46. acknowledged "(i)t 'police' field utilities, undoubtedly running afoul embrace 63-64 citations But, continued, "(a)lthough regard local fields incompatible Designed industry manner effect." 64-65. critical argument, draw delicate acceptable legislation, designed affecting exception "sham" "harass(ing) deter(ring) competitors 'free unlimited access' Motor Transport Trucking, Unlimited, 404 508, 515, 609, 614, 642. 477, misplaced. discontinuance nonpayment trigger protections Due Process Amendment. termination Amendment 455. disagreed, 456 bearing line namely, JUSTICE's "neutral" 26, Infra. insistence "purpose" incident interference popular initiative. 137-138, 17, necessity affected "program's indicate improper Suppressing Raising prices. 595 ("Unquestionably character"). continues, aims suppressing duplicating effects down. type, afford 596 weight. nonmonopoly Slater, Action: Formula Narrowing Nw.U.L.Rev. 71, 1169 (1889) (remarks Sen. Reagan); 1458 George); 2467 (1890) Hiscock); 2469-2470 2566 Stewart); 2567 Hoar); 2600 George). 338. 1707, 51st 1167 (1889). 2456 2460. 2456. Munn Illinois, 113, 125, ("Under (the police) towards property, good. customary England immemorial, country colonization, ferries, carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, wharfingers, innkeepers, &c., fix maximum rendered, accommodations furnished, articles sold. day, subjects; came property"). Frankfort Distilleries, 324 293, 661, 664, 951; 558, 1176, 1440; Atlantic Cleaners Dyers 286 427, 435, 607, 1204. American Bldg. Maint. Industries, 271, 278, 2150, 2155, 177; Gulf Copp Paving 186, 194-195, 392, 398-399, 378. 1852 2; 201-202, 401-402; Mandeville Island Farms, Crystal Sugar 334 219, 229-235, 996, 1002-1006, 1328. 85. expresses "what law" Any "inconsistent" pre-empted. 606. modify plausibly resting 639. conflicted persist, soon legislatively overruled 45(a)(2)-(5). "direct bulbs" "neutral 584, 585. considers specificity deals respecting deference overlooks "neutral," announced (1970), vest expert "with "vested Services, Conditions hear ensure eschewing delegation incorporating details another context, "(d)elegation exertion futility. (T)he effectiveness processes endangered legislature) compulsion filling liberal prescription 'just reasonable' 'public interest') Then burdens minutiae apt clog administration flexibility dispatch salient virtues." Sunshine Anthracite Coal 310 381, 398, 907, 915, 1263. 390-395, 748-751. Verkuil, Action, Antitrust: Reflections Col.L.Rev. 328 (1975).

Category: 7