Court Opinion

ID: 9425875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:16:04.979575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.122115
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
with.whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins,
dissenting.
I suppose it would be conceded that if one person or company acquired all the asphaltic concrete plants in the United States, there might well be a violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act, which makes unlawful a monopoly of “any part of the trade or commerce among the several States.” 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 2. Moreover, even though their sales were all intrastate, they would come within the ban of § 1 of the Sherman Act, if they substantially affected interstate commerce. For in the Sherman Act, we held, “Congress wanted to go to the utmost extent of its Constitutional power in restraining trust and monopoly argreements....” United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U. S. 533, 558 (1944).
While the Clayton Act modified the Sherman Act by restricting possible application of the antitrust laws to labor unions,1 and by expanding the scope of those laws to cover the aggregation of economic power through stock acquisitions,2 there is not a word to suggest that *205when Congress defined the term “commerce” it desired to contract the scope of that term.3 The legislative history does not furnish even a bare suggestion or inference that “commerce” under the Clayton Act meant something less than it meant under the Sherman Act. The Clayton Act became the law in 1914; and prior to that time the Court had held over and over again that acts or conduct wholly intrastate might be “in restraint of trade or commerce” as that phrase was used in the Sherman Act. Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, 397 (1905) ; United States v. Patten, 226 U. S. 525, 541-543 (1913). These holdings were reflected in the “affecting commerce” standard of the Shreveport Rate Cases, Houston & Texas R. Co. v. United States, 234 U. S. 342, 353-355 (1914). The primary definition of commerce, for Clayton Act purposes, is “trade or commerce among the several States.” 4 In the years just preceding passage of *206that Act, this Court had held on several occasions that the phrase “among the several States” embraces all commerce save that “which is confined to a single State and does not affect other States.” Second Employers’ Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, 46-47 (1912) (emphasis added); The Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U. S. 352, 398-399 (1913). In applying the Clayton Act prohibitions to persons and corporations “engaged in commerce [among the several States],” Congress thus may reasonably be said to have intended to reach persons or corporations whose activities, while wholly intrastate in nature, affect other States through their effects on interstate commerce.
The holding in Transamerica Corp. v. Board of Governors, 206 F. 2d 163, 166 (CA3 1953), that Congress, when it enacted the Clayton Act, desired “to exercise its power under the commerce clause of the Constitution to the fullest extent,” has nothing to rebut it. Congress apparently was not as timorous as the present Court in moving against centers of economic power and practices that aggrandize it. Heretofore that is the way we have read the Clayton Act: that Act was intended to complement the Sherman Act by regulating in their incipiency actions which might irreparably damage competition before reaching the level of actual restraint proscribed by the Sherman Act, and, in the absence of some indication of legislative intent to the contrary, we should not lightly assume that Congress intended to undercut that complementary function by circumscribing the jurisdictional reach of the Clayton Act more narrowly than that of the *207Sherman Act.5 See United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Co., 378 U. S. 158, 170-171 (1964); United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U. S. 586, 589, 597 (1957); Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston Co., 258 U. S. 346, 355-356 (1922); S. Rep. No. 698, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1914). And that is the way in which we assumed that the Celler-Kefauver Act in 1950, 64 Stat. 1125, 15 U. S. C. § 18, addressed itself to the problem. For we said in Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, 315-323 (1962), that the legislative history showed congressional concern over the “desirability of retaining ‘local control’ over industry and the protection of small businesses.” Id., at 315-316. One dramatic way of leveling local business is pulling it into a vast interstate business regime of the nature alleged in this complaint.
*208I
I agree with the court below that jurisdiction may be sustained on an “in commerce” theory.6 Clayton Act §§ 3 and 7 apply to persons or corporations “engaged in commerce”; we have held, in a line of cases arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 201 et seq., that persons or enterprises engaged in building or repairing toll roads, bridges, and canal locks are “engaged in commerce” and therefore within the reach of the commerce power, by virtue of their relationship to indispensable instrumentalities of our system of interstate commerce. Mitchell v. Vollmer & Co., 349 U. S. 427 (1955); Fitzgerald Co. v. Pedersen, 324 U. S. 720 (1945); Overstreet v. North Shore Corp., 318 U. S. 125 (1943). It is true, as the majority notes, that the FLSA and the antitrust laws are different statutes, but the critical difference between the statutes arises in an area which in no way weakens the applicability of the FLSA cases to the present inquiry.
In the FLSA and in many other regulatory enactments, Congress itself has determined that certain classes of activities have a sufficient impact upon interstate commerce to warrant regulation of the entire class, regardless of whether an individual instance of the activity in question can be shown to be in or to affect commerce. See generally Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146, 152-154 (1971); United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100, 119-121 *209(1941). The FLSA represents such a congressional determination with respect to the payment of wages below a specified level and with respect to employment exceeding a specified number of hours per week (under specified conditions). 29 U. S. C. §§206, 207. Once either of these practices is found to exist with respect to an employer or employee covered by the FLSA, the regulatory provisions of that Act are called into play without further inquiry into the possible effect of the individual employer’s practices on interstate commerce.
In the antitrust laws, Congress has provided a different sort of treatment. The Sherman Act broadly prohibits practices in restraint of trade or commerce, and the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts bar price discrimination, tie-ins, and corporate stock or assets acquisitions where “the effect of” such practices “may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.” The finding that a person or corporation is covered by these Acts does not trigger automatic application of the regulatory prohibition; instead, a court must go on to make an individualized determination of the actual or potential impact of that particular person’s or corporation’s activities on competition or on interstate commerce.7
It is in this respect that the antitrust laws differ from the FLSA and other regulatory enactments. The present case, however, does not turn on that difference, because it does not raise the issue of whether the actions of the *210named defendants had a sufficiently adverse effect on interstate commerce to make out a violation of the antitrust laws; that issue goes to the merits of Copp’s claims, and cannot properly be reached at this stage. Instead, the case as now presented raises the threshold issue of whether the named defendants are within the jurisdictional reach of the antitrust laws, and our inquiry on that point does not differ significantly from our inquiry under the FLSA or any other regulatory statute. The FLSA covers employers of employees “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce”; the Clayton Act and Robinson-Patman Act provisions at issue here cover persons or corporations “engaged in commerce.” We have held, in FLSA and Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) cases, that Congress’ use of the phrase “engaged in commerce” is sufficiently broad to reach employees engaged in repairing highways or in carrying bolts to be used for bridge repairs, Overstreet v. North Shore Corp., supra; in light of the purposes of the Clayton Act, I see no reason why the phrase “engaged in commerce” as used in that Act should not be read equally broadly, and should not thereby be deemed sufficient to reach corporations engaged in building highways or in producing and supplying the very materials used in such construction. As the Court of Appeals aptly noted: “Regulation of business practices through the antitrust laws . . . may justifiably reach further than some other types of regulation because the antitrust laws are concerned directly with aiding the flow of commerce.” 487 F. 2d 202, 204 (1973).
II
An alternative ground for affirming the judgment below, likewise rejected by the majority, is that the Clayton Act’s “engaged in commerce” jurisdictional language is sufficiently broad to encompass corporations which are *211not in the flow of commerce itself but which, through their activities, affect commerce. For the reasons stated in the introductory portion of this opinion, I, for one, am persuaded that Clayton Act §§ 3 and 7 are as broad as the Sherman Act in this respect. The majority expressly disclaims any intent to resolve that issue on the ground that Copp has failed to produce any “proof” of such effects, and is therefore not entitled to continue this suit even under a broad reading of the jurisdictional phrase; in my view, the burden of proof which the Court thereby imposes upon Copp is one which may not properly be imposed at this stage of the litigation.
The complaint alleges the acquisition by Gulf of named companies with the purpose and effect of creating a monopoly under the Sherman Act and likewise substantially lessening competition and creating a monopoly in violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act. Like allegations are made respecting certain acquisitions of Union Oil. Allegations are made that the petitioners divide the geographic areas of competition for the purpose of eliminating competition. The petitioners are alleged to indulge in tie-in practices, whereby base rock material would be sold substantially more cheaply to contractors who buy their asphaltic concrete from the named petitioners. The complaint alleges that the petitioners have maintained high prices in areas where there is no competition and that where competition exists, they sell their products at artificially low prices — below cost — and that that is the practice of petitioners where they compete with Copp. Thus, violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and Robinson-Patman Act are alleged.
There has been no trial. The case was disposed of on pleadings and affidavits. The District Judge ordered discovery so that all the parties could “develop the facts bearing upon the question of whether the alleged, con*212spiracy was one affecting interstate commerce.” At the end of the time allotted for discovery, the District Court ruled that “the local activities of the defendants with regard to asphaltic concrete did not have a substantial impact on interstate commerce,” and as respects one of the defendants (who is not a party in the case now before us) granted its motion for summary judgment.8
The Court of Appeals speaking through Judge Alfred T. Goodwin said — properly, I think:
“Nor can we accept defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs must show not only that the parties and sales are 'in’ commerce but must show that competition was injured before the court has jurisdiction. This is the result of confusing the substantive with the jurisdictional requirements of the antitrust laws. It is not necessary for a plaintiff to prove his whole case in order to give the courts jurisdiction to hear it.” 487 F. 2d, at 206.
The allegations and the complaint plainly gave the District Court jurisdiction.9 What a trial on the merits might *213produce no one knows. The District Judge said: “I conclude that the local activities of the defendants with regard to asphaltic concrete did not have a substantial impact on interstate commerce.” That could not possibly be said until at least the plaintiffs had offered their proof; yet, as the Court of Appeals said, the plaintiffs need not prove, on a motion that goes to the jurisdiction of the court, the merits of their case in order to obtain an opportunity to try it.10

 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 17. See H. R. Rep. No. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 14-16 (1914); United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U. S. 219 (1941).

 15 U. S. C. § 18; H. R. Rep. No. 627, supra, at 17. See also United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Co., 378 U. S. 158, 170-171 *205(1964); United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U. S. 586, 597 (1957).

 The definition of “antitrust laws” as used in the Clayton Act includes the Sherman Act. 15 U. S. C. § 12. The definition of “commerce” was actually “broadened so as to include trade and commerce between any insular possessions or other places under the jurisdiction of the United States, which at present do not come within the scope of the Sherman antitrust law or other laws relating to trusts.” H. R. Rep. No. 627, supra, at 7.
The Sherman Act declares illegal every contract, combination, or conspiracy “in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States . . . .” 15 U. S. C. § 1. It also makes a misdemeanor a monopoly of “any part of the trade or commerce among the several States . . . .” 15 U. S. C. § 2.

 “Commerce” as used in the Clayton Act is defined in § 1 as follows:
“‘Commerce,’ as used herein, means trade or commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States and any State, Territory, or foreign nation, or between any insular possessions or other places under the jurisdiction of the United States, or between *206any such possession or place and any State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia or any foreign nation, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States.” 15 U. S. C. § 12.

 Indeed, we would have to sit as a Committee of Revision- over Congress, shaping the law to fit our prejudices against antitrust regulations, to hold that “in commerce” as used in the Clayton Act was intended to provide less comprehensive coverage than the language of the Sherman Act. Prior to passage of the Clayton Act, labor union practices had been held by this Court to affect commerce and thus to fall within the reach of the Sherman Act, despite the fact that the union activities could not be regarded as being in the flow of commerce. Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274, 300-301 (1908). See also Teamsters Local 167 v. United States, 291 U. S. 293, 297 (1934); Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U. S. 469 (1940); United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn., 347 U. S. 186, 189 (1954). If the Court is right today in saying that “in commerce” as used in the Clayton Act is to be read more restrictively than the Sherman Act, then those who drafted the Clayton Act (including Louis D. Brandéis) to protect labor were needlessly concerned — no express exemption of labor would have been necessary, since the “in commerce” language of the Clayton Act (if narrowly read) would not have supported judicial attempts to reach labor activities on an “affecting commerce” theory. The drafters obviously thought otherwise.

 The decision of the Court of Appeals on the Sherman Act issue, which remains intact by virtue of our limited grant of certiorari, held that petitioners and their alleged activities were sufficiently “in commerce” to support Sherman Act jurisdiction. 487 F. 2d 202, 205 (1973). The majority now holds, however, that petitioners and their alleged activities were not sufficiently “in commerce” to support Clayton and Robinson-Patman Act coverage. In light of the latter holding, it is difficult to imagine the reception that Copp’s Sherman Act claims will receive on remand.

 Of course, in a limited range of Sherman Act cases, this Court has held that certain practices are per se violations of the antitrust laws; that is to say, these practices are conclusively presumed to be illegal without the need for any particularized inquiry into their effects. See generally White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U. S. 253, 259-262 (1963), and cases collected therein. These eases may be viewed as limited exceptions to the individualized approach described in the text above.

 Federal Rule Civ. Proc. 56 “deals with the merits” of a claim and if in favor of the defendant is “in bar and not in abatement,” 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.03, p. 2051 (2d ed. 1974). Lack of jurisdiction of the court is a matter in abatement and thus is not usually appropriate for a summary judgment, which is not a substitute for a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Id., at 2052-2053.
On the general propriety of discovery orders of this sort, see 4 id., ¶26.56 [6]; but “[t]here are cases ... in which the jurisdictional questions are so intertwined with the merits that the court might prefer to reserve judgment on the jurisdiction until after discovery has been completed.” Id., at 26-191. See also the discussion in n. 10, infra.

 The issue of whether there is subject-matter jurisdiction raises the question whether the complaint, on its face, asserts a non-frivolous claim “arising under” federal law. Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 199-200 (1962); Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 682-68*2133 (1946). If such a claim is stated, the District Court is then empowered to assume jurisdiction and to determine whether the claim is good or bad, on the basis of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or cause of action. Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U. S. 354, 359 (1959); Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Northwestern Public Service Co., 341 U. S. 246, 249 (1951). Such a dismissal is on the merits, not for want of jurisdiction. Bell v. Hood, supra.

 It is sometimes said that where the district court’s jurisdiction is challenged, that court has the power, either on its own motion or on motion of a party, to inquire into the facts as they exist for purposes of resolving the jurisdictional issue. Land v. Dollar, 330 U. S. 731, 735 n. 4 (1947), and cases cited; Local 336, American Federation of Musicians v. Bonatz, 475 F. 2d 433, 437 (CA3 1973). On the other hand, if the jurisdictional issue is closely intertwined with or dependent on the merits of the case, the preferred procedure is to proceed to a determination of the case on the merits. McBeath v. Inter-American Citizens for Decency Comm., 374 F. 2d 359, 362-363 (CA5), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 896 (1967); Jaconski v. Avisun Corp., 359 F. 2d 931, 935-936 (CA3 1966).
The cases cited for the proposition that a district court may inquire into jurisdictional facts on a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction are cases in which the jurisdictional issue was whether the plaintiff met the amount-in-controversy requirement. That jurisdictional issue is sufficiently independent of the merits of the claim to warrant independent examination, if challenged. Where the jurisdictional issue is more closely linked to the merits, disposition of the jurisdictional issue on motion becomes inappropriate. Thus in Land v. Dollar, where the complaint alleged that members of the United States Maritime Commission were unlawfully holding *214shares of Dollar stock under a claim that the stock belonged to the United States, the District Court dismissed on the ground that the suit was against the United States. In affirming a reversal of that dismissal, the Court said: “[Although as a general rule the District Court would have authority to consider questions of jurisdiction on the basis of affidavits as well as the pleadings, this is the type of case where the question of jurisdiction is dependent on decision of the merits.” 330 U. S., at 735. This was true because if the plaintiffs prevailed on either of their theories on the merits (that the Commission was without authority to acquire the shares, or that the contract was simply a pledge of the shares rather than an outright transfer), then they would also prevail on the jurisdictional issue. And in the McBeath case, supra, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a pretrial dismissal of a Sherman Act claim on grounds of lack of jurisdiction (for failure to show an effect on interstate commerce). Relying on Land v. Dollar, it held that the issue of effects on interstate commerce was so intertwined with the merits of the claim that it was error for the District Court to dismiss without giving the plaintiff a full chance to prove his case on the merits.
In cases such as United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn., 347 U. S. 186 (1954); Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219 (1948); and United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U. S. 218 (1947), this Court has reviewed “interstate commerce” issues in the context of dismissals of antitrust suits prior to trial on the merits. Those dismissals, however, were based, not upon motions for summary judgment or for dismissal for want of jurisdiction, but rather upon motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In such eases, of course, the allegations of the complaint must be taken as true. Id., at 224. In the case now before us, the District Court clearly went beyond the face of the complaint and required respondents to produce proof of interstate effects.