Court Opinion

ID: 9427117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:19:47.745355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:04.986107
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Marshall,
concurring.
I agree with The Chief Justice, post, at 426-426, that any implied “state action” exemption from the antitrust laws should be no broader than is necessary to serve the State’s legitimate purposes. I join the plurality opinion, however, because the test there established, relating to whether it is “state policy to displace competition,” ante, at 413, incorporates within it the core of The Chief Justice’s concern. As the plurality opinion makes clear, it is not enough that the State *418“desire[s] to insulate anticompetitive practices.” Ante, at 416. For there to be an antitrust exemption, the State must “impose” the practices “as an act of government.” Ibid. State action involving more anticompetitive restraint than necessary to effectuate governmental purposes must be viewed as inconsistent with the plurality’s approach.