Legal Document

471 U.S. 34 105 S.Ct. 1713 85 L.Ed.2d 24 TOWN OF HALLIE, et al., Petitionersv.CITY EAU CLAIRE. No. 82-1832. Argued Nov. 26, 1984. Decided March 27, 1985. Syllabus Petitioners, unincorporated townships located in Wisconsin adjacent to respondent city, filed suit against Federal District Court, alleging that petitioners were potential competitors of the collection and transportation sewage, had violated Sherman Act by acquiring a monopoly over provision sewage treatment services area tying such services. Respondent refused supply petitioners, but supplied individual landowners petitioners' areas if majority individuals voted referendum election have their homes annexed use its The Court dismissed complaint, finding, inter alia, statutes regulating municipal expressed clear state policy replace competition with regulation. court concluded respondent's allegedly anticompetitive conduct fell within "state action" exemption federal antitrust laws established Parker v. Brown, 317 341, 63 307, 87 L.Ed. 315. Appeals affirmed. Held: Respondent's activities are protected action laws. Pp. 38-47. (a) Before municipality may claim protection exemption, it must demonstrate is engaging challenged activity pursuant "clearly articulated" policy. Lafayette Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 389, 98 1123, 55 364. 38-40. (b) grant authority cities construct maintain systems, describe district be served, refuse serve unannexed areas. not merely neutral on but, instead, clearly contemplate city engage anti-competitive conduct. To pass "clear articulation" test, legislature need expressly statute or legislative history intends for delegated effects. evidence articulated displace regulation 40-44. (c) requirement test does require show State "compelled" act. Although compulsion affirmatively best policy, no means prerequisite finding acted Cantor Detroit Edison 428 579, 96 3110, 49 1141, Goldfarb Virginia Bar, 421 773, 95 2004, 44 572, distinguished. 45-46. (d) Active supervision from where actor rather than private party. active serves essentially evidentiary function ensuring Where party, there little danger involved price-fixing arrangement. will seek further purely parochial public interests at expense more overriding goals minimal, because act P. 46-47. 700 F.2d 376 (CA7 1983), Claude J. Covelli, Madison, Wis., petitioners. Frederick W. Fischer, Eau Claire, respondent. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 This case presents question whether municipality's 315 (1943), when authorized, compelled, State, actively supervise 2 * Petitioners—Town Hallie, Town Seymour, Union, Washington (the Towns)—are four respondent, City Claire City). Hallie Chippewa County, other three towns County.1 Towns United States Western seeking injunctive relief Act, 15 U.S.C. § seq., Counties, services.2 Under Water Pollution Control 33 1251 obtained funds help build facility Service Area, included Towns; only one market available Towns. has It vote City, see Wis.Stat. §§ 66.024(4), 144.07(1) (1982), City's 3 Alleging they contended used gain an unlawful services, violation Act. They also actions constituted illegal arrangement refusal deal 4 ruled City. found Wisconsin's service adequately supervised through State's Department Natural Resources, was authorized review decisions concerning corresponding annexations land. laws, as set forth Community Communications Co. Boulder, 455 40, 102 835, 70 810 supra. Accordingly, complaint. 5 Seventh Circuit (1983). provide therefore assumed contemplated effects might result, thus taken authorization meaning this involving "a local government performing traditional function," F.2d, 384, unnecessary immunity apply. Requiring would unwise situation, believed, erode concepts autonomy home rule statutes. 6 We granted certiorari, 467 1240, 104 3508, 82 818 (1984), now affirm. II 7 starting point any analysis doctrine reasoning Brown. In Parker, relying principles federalism sovereignty, construe applying acting legislature. U.S., 350-351, S.Ct., 313-314. Rather, intended prohibit restraints trade, infer intent "nullify state's control officers agents" directed Id., 351, 313. 8 Municipalities, hand, beyond reach virtue status themselves sovereign. 412, 1136, 364 (1978) (opinion BRENNAN, J.). obtain municipalities "pursuant service." 413, 1137. 9 determination constitute formalistic inquiry; validate simply declaring lawful. On proving exists, "be able specific, detailed authorization" order assert successful defense suit. 415, 1138. suggested, without deciding issue, sufficient . policy" "actively supervised" State. 410, 1135. plurality viewed approach desirable "preserv[ed] freedom administer regulatory policies free inhibitions same time permitting disrupt Nation's free-market goals." 415-416, 1138-1139. 10 California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 97, 100 937, 233 (1980), unanimous applied two-pronged which claimed party.3 case, we California's wine-pricing system. Even though permit resale liquor price maintenance, activity. Thus, wine producers who prices entitled exemption. When again addressed issue supra, declined accept Lafayette' suggestion exists. held Colorado's Home Rule Amendment Constitution, conferring governments general govern affairs, did authorize respect cable television locale. Because could meet decide governmental 51-52, n. 14, 840-841, 14. 11 our cases before never fully considered, however, how establish constitutes action. Moreover, left open municipality—like party—must satisfy "active supervision" requirement. consider both those issues below. III 12 cites several provisions code support examine statutory structure some detail. A. 13 Stat. 62.18(1) (1981-1982) grants construct, add to, alter, repair systems. includes power "describe reasonable particularity [served]." Ibid. supplemented 66.069(2)(c) (1981-1982), providing operating utility 14 "may ordinance fix limits Such shall delineate provided obligation so delineated." With joint provides Resources city's system constructed cities, towns, connect system, connections made. Subsection (1m) provides, connection territory void refuses become city.4 B 16 contend these do make express mention conduct.5 As discussed above, foreseeable result empowering necessary, contend, stated explicitly expected Applying (1978), determine served. think logically broad regulate. See New Motor Vehicle Board Orrin Fox 439 96, 109, 99 403, 411, 58 361 (no inherently "displace[d] unfettered business freedom"). Accord, Areeda D. Turner, Antitrust Law ¶ 212.3, p. 54 (Supp.1982). 17 Nor agree Towns' contention here attempt liken arguing leave pursue either field analogy Boulder inapposite. That Colorado Constitution allocated most affairs. component test. address television. every aspect relating television, well concern. Here, contrast, specifically take foreseeably No argument can made way was.6 18 amounts embodies unrealistic view legislatures work written. catalog all anticipated kind. 19 Furthermore, requiring explicit deleterious consequences. Stewart's dissent concerned plurality's impose kind legislatures, detrimental side upon municipalities' themselves. 434-435, 1147-1148. fact, required degree specificity insist necessary.7 20 sum, conclude expressed" These plainly " 'the complained of.' Lafayette, 1138 (quoting decision Appeals, 532 431, 434 (CA5 1976)).8 C 21 argue requires least doing, rely language 1141 (1976), 572 (1975). disagree reasons. parties—not municipalities—claiming fact distinguishes arm presume, absent showing contrary, acts interest.9 A presumed primarily his own behalf. 22 None application shown. Both 56-57, 843-844, 416-417, 1138-1139, spoke terms direction practice issue. municipality, matter prove short, although IV 23 Finally, supervision, depend Lafayette. fair say been entirely clear. suggest, elaboration claiming parties. recent relevant municipalities. should imposed municipality.10 function: Midcal, necessary prevent circumventing Act's proscriptions "by casting gauzy cloak involvement what arrangement." 106, 943. party activity, real he interests, goals. Once execution properly function. V 25 exempt hold accordingly affirm judgment Circuit. 26 ordered. Counties. complaint alleged violations common-law duty serve. claims, originally brought mandamus injunction agency, Alcoholic Beverage Control. played role, setting reviewing reasonableness, carried out dealers. 100-101, 940-941. mere agency named defendant alter appropriate acts. Southern Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. States, 48, 1721, 1726-1727, 36 (1985). There case. Wis.Stat.Ann. 66.076(1) 66.30 (1965 Supp.1984) actually procompetitive. fail because, aside raised below, relied contention. First, true permits certain municipalities, including operate enabling statute, mandatory prescription. addition, subsection (8) 66.076 incorporates into limitations 66.069, limit service. procompetitive attitude. aid utilities—not just systems—that enter cooperative agreements. mandatory, permissive. even assuming two agreed section cooperate necessarily greater competition. combined effective alone keeping market. discretion always delegate political subdivisions. close examination legislature's apply undesirable embroil courts interpretation Besides burdening courts, undercut fundamental immunizing scrutiny. 212.3(b) Our supported Falls, Wis.2d 533, 314 N.W.2d 321 Supreme rejected Hallie's challenge under Falls quite similar bar. There, argued annexation, conditioning acceptance disagreed, concluding undertake actions. Those Analyzing 144.07(1m), "viewed annexation surrounding quid pro quo extending sewer area." 540-541, N.W.2d, 325. Court's not, course, presented instructive enacting sewerage Among things, invariably likely exposed scrutiny Municipalities subject "sunshine" disclosure regulations, officers, unlike corporate heads, checked electoral process. position eye abuses exists required, involved, shown, 62, 1729-1730.

Classification Label: 7