Legal Document

372 U.S. 29 83 Supreme Court Reporter 594 9 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 561 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.NATIONAL DAIRY PRODUCTS CORP. et al. Number 18. Reargued Dec. 5, 1962. Decided Feb. 18, 1963. Rehearing Denied April 1, See 961, 1011. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for appellant. John T. Chadwell, Chicago, Ill., appellees. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case involves question whether § 3 Robinson-Patman Act, 15 Code KF62 13a, making it a crime to sell goods at 'unreasonably low prices purpose destroying competition or eliminating competitor,' is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite as applied sales made below cost with such purpose. National Dairy Raymond Judge Wise, vice-president director, upon being charged, inter alia, violating by competition, moved dismissal Act counts indictment on ground that statute indefinite. The District granted motion ordered dismissal. On direct appeal under Criminal Appeals 18 3731, we noted probable jurisdiction, 368 808, 82 45, 7 19, because importance issue in administration Act. We have concluded order was error therefore remand trial. I. 2 engaged business purchasing, processing, distributing selling milk other dairy products throughout States. Through its processing plant Kansas City, Missouri, has past several years been national concerns various local dairies Greater City area surrounding areas Missouri. In market distributes directly, but cities towns Missouri outside this are served independent distributors who purchase from resell their own account. charged violations both Sherman six markets adjacent area.1 Wise those 'at unreasonably competition.' Further specifying acts complained of, having 'utilized advantages possesses reason fact operates great many different geographical localities finance subsidize price war against small * intentionally (directly distributor) National's cost.' five Dairy's pricing practice alleged resulted 'severe financial losses dairies,' two others effect claimed 'eliminate competition' 'drive from' market. 4 move dismiss all grounds statutory provision, prices,' so violate due process requirement Fifth Amendment an based provision violative Sixth does not adequately apprise them charges. Court, after rendering oral holding indefinite, counts. came here II. 5 urge be tested solely 'on face' rather than conduct indictment, i.e., competition. Government hand, places greater emphasis latter, contending there doubt validity possible applications, s plainly constitutional application indictment. 6 It true attacked must initially examined face,' follow readily discernible dividing line can always drawn, statutes falling neatly into one categories 'valid' 'invalid' basis examination. do evaluate abstract. 8 'The delicate power pronouncing Congress unconstitutional exercised reference hypothetical cases *. (A) limiting construction could given court responsible if doubtful constitutionality were presented. might add rule frees only unnecessary pronouncement issues, also premature interpretations where cloudy.' versus Raines, 362 17, 22, 80 519, 524 (1960). strong presumptive attaches led hold times automatically invalidated simply difficulty found determining certain marginal offenses fall within language. E.g., Jordan De George, 341 223, 231, 71 703, 707, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951), Petrillo, 332 7, 67 1538, 1541, 91 1877 (1947). Indeed, consistently sought interpretation which supports legislation. Rumely, 345 41, 47, 73 543, 546, 97 770 (1953); Crowell Benson, 285 62, 52 285, 296, 76 598 (1932); see Screws States, 325 91, 65 1031, 89 1495 (1945). 10 Void vagueness means criminal responsibility should attach reasonably understand his contemplated proscribed. Harriss, 347 612, 617, 74 S.C. 811, 98 989 (1954). sufficiency notice necessity light defendant charged. Robinson 324 282, 666, 944 view these principles conclude gave sufficient warning unlawful, them.2 say beadsight correct blunderbuss statute, latter itself sufficiently focused forewarn reach coverage. consider attack relation warned 'below cost' predatory intent prohibition prices.' III. 11 history indicates cost, unless mitigated some acceptable exigency, intended prohibited words That without justifying may come proscriptions long established. e.g., Standard Oil company New Jersey 221 31 502, 55 619 (1911). Further, when Clayton enacted 1914 strengthen passed cover discrimination large companies compete lowering prices, 'oftentimes production *with destroy make unprofitable competitors.' H.R.Rep.No.627, 63d Cong., Sess. 8. 1936 enactment 'strengthening provisions,' Federal Trade Comm. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 363 536, 544, 1267, 1272, 1385 (1960), aimed specific weapon monopolist—predatory pricing. Moreover, described Representative Utterback, House manager joint conference committee, attaching 'criminal penalties addition civil liabilities remedies already provided Act.' Cong.Rec. 9419. 12 Moore Mead's Fine Bread Co., 348 115, 75 148, 99 145 (1954), part 3, recognized applicability quite similar here. said, 'Congress barred use interstate business' through programs 'profits activities would underwrite price-cutting campaigns.' same 120, 119, 151, 150. 13 proscribing competitor' believe condemned And language proscribed They say, however, horse bridle phrase expression business. 14 Whether refers 'direct' 'fully distributed' level computation cannot decided There nothing record point, well will rendered academic showing sold any levels. Therefore, As said Automatic Canteen American Comm., 346 61, 65, 1017, 1020, 1454 (1953): 'Since precision outstanding characteristic exact formulation before us necessary avoid inadvertent context require separate consideration settings.' Finally, think additional element required provides further definition conduct. more held adequate (1945), 'relieve objection punishes offense accused unaware.' 102, 1036; id. 101—107, 1035—1038. Proscribed intentional achievement result, willful deprivation rights. here, prohibiting listed elements illegal achieve result—destruction act—selling prices—done furtherance design seems clear specificity afforded when, separate, though related, activity focus course 16 L. Cohen Grocery 255 81, 41 298, 516 (1921), much reliance placed, inapposite 'any unjust unreasonable rate charge.' charge and, covered charge, did state collected. Hence, 'specific definite' act neither nor 89, 300. standard too meaningful referent usage. '(T)here no accepted fairly stable commercial regarded impliedly taken up adopted *.' Small Sugar Rfg. 267 233, 240—241, 45 295, 297, 69 589 (1925). practices unmistakably directed absent Cohen, proffered analogy rejected. 17 connection note approach 'vagueness' governing like followed arising First Amendment. concerned deter constitutionally protected socially desirable Thornhill Alabama, 310 88, 98, 60 736, 742, 84 1093 (1940); N.A.A.C.P. Button, 371 415, 328. No factor present designed desirable. thus permitted terms applied. misplaced. IV. construed, every sale constitutes violation 3. Such legitimate objective, liquidation excess, obsolete perishable merchandise, need meet lawful, equally competitor. 6332, 6334; Ben Hur Coal Wells, 242 Reporter, 2nd 481 (C.A.10th Cir., 1957). Sales instances low' intent. But objective clearly prohibitions 19 Since charges noted, supra, n. 2, bound well-pleaded allegations forewarned Our holding, course, foreclose proof merits reasonableness or, matter, absence conviction. 20 Reversed remanded. 21 BLACK, whom STEWART GOLDBERG join, dissenting. 22 involved makes 'goods competitor.' 13a. void 'for person willfully charge' dealing necessaries. established often followed,1 my judgment sound, control case. Accordingly, & N Immigration Nationality Decisions affirm Court's invalid. attempts substitute unambiguous standards prices' used statute. me drastically reconstructed done Congress, us. agree Attorney General's Committee Study Antitrust Laws, concluded: 23 'Doubts besetting Section 3's seem founded; gloss imparted adjudication settled contours harsh law.'2 Seven 15-count relate One count, number 13, vicepresident director National, authorizing ordering effectuation 370 405, 1354, 590 (1962), named defendant. that, reviewing granted, accept hypothesis decision. Boyce Motor Lines 342 337, 343, 72 329, 332, 96 367 (1952). Cline Frink 274 445, 47 681, 1146 (1927); Lanzetta Jersey, 306 451, 59 618, 888 (1939); cf. Cardiff, 344 174, 189, 200 (1952)9 Atty.Gen.Nat.Comm. Rep. 201 (1955) (recommending repeal 3).

Classification Label: 7