59-490: The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (26 Stat. 209 , 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 – 7 ) is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce and consequently prohibits unfair monopolies . It was passed by Congress and is named for Senator John Sherman , its principal author. The Sherman Act broadly prohibits 1) anticompetitive agreements and 2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize
118-495: A motion to dismiss , plaintiffs, under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , must plead facts consistent with FRCP 8(a) sufficient to show that a conspiracy is plausible (and not merely conceivable or possible). This protects defendants from bearing the costs of antitrust "fishing expeditions"; however it deprives plaintiffs of perhaps their only tool to acquire evidence (discovery). Second, courts have employed more sophisticated and principled definitions of markets. Market definition
177-551: A competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses. In Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan 506 U.S. 447 (1993) the Supreme Court said: The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself. According to its authors, it
236-784: A conflict between the text of the Statutes at Large and the text of a provision of the United States Code that has not been enacted as positive law, the text of the Statutes at Large takes precedence. Publication of the United States Statutes at Large began in 1845 by the private firm of Little, Brown and Company under authority of a joint resolution of Congress . During Little, Brown and Company's time as publisher, Richard Peters (Volumes 1–8), George Minot (Volumes 9–11), and George P. Sanger (Volumes 11–17) served as editors. In 1874, Congress transferred
295-454: A more sophisticated market definition that does not permit as manipulative a definition. Section 2 of the Act forbids monopoly. In Section 2 cases, the court has, again on its own initiative, drawn a distinction between coercive and innocent monopoly. The act is not meant to punish businesses that come to dominate their market passively or on their own merit, only those that intentionally dominate
354-440: A state requires conduct analyzed under the rule of reason, a court must carefully distinguish rule of reason analysis for preemption purposes from the analysis for liability purposes. To analyze whether preemption occurs, the court must determine whether the inevitable effects of a statutory restraint unreasonably restrain trade. If they do, preemption is warranted unless the statute passes the appropriate state action tests. But, when
413-494: A statute is attacked on its face or for its effects. A statute can be condemned on its face only when it mandates, authorizes or places irresistible pressure on private parties to engage in conduct constituting a per se violation of Section 1. If the statute does not mandate conduct violating a per se rule, the conduct is analyzed under the rule of reason, which requires an examination of the conduct's actual effects on competition. If unreasonable anticompetitive effects are created,
472-527: A sufficient reason for invalidating the ... statute. For if an adverse effect on competition were, in and of itself, enough to render a state statute invalid, the States' power to engage in economic regulation would be effectively destroyed. This indicates that not every anticompetitive effect warrants preemption. In neither Exxon nor New Motor Vehicle did the created effect constitute an antitrust violation. The Rice guideline therefore indicates that only when
531-533: Is clarified by examining the three cases cited in Rice to support the statement. In New Motor Vehicle Board v. Orrin W. Fox Co. , automobile manufacturers and retail franchisees contended that the Sherman Act preempted a statute requiring manufacturers to secure the permission of a state board before opening a new dealership if and only if a competing dealer protested. They argued that a conflict existed because
590-436: Is divided into three sections. Section 1 delineates and prohibits specific means of anticompetitive conduct, while Section 2 deals with end results that are anti-competitive in nature. Thus, these sections supplement each other in an effort to prevent businesses from violating the spirit of the Act, while technically remaining within the letter of the law. Section 3 simply extends the provisions of Section 1 to U.S. territories and
649-461: Is necessary, in rule of reason cases, for the plaintiff to prove a conspiracy is harmful. It is also necessary for the plaintiff to establish the market relationship between conspirators to prove their conduct is within the per se rule. In early cases, it was easier for plaintiffs to show market relationship, or dominance, by tailoring market definition, even if it ignored fundamental principles of economics. In U.S. v. Grinnell , 384 U.S. 563 (1966),
SECTION 10
#1732791981087708-530: Is the name of the session law publication for U.S. Federal statutes. The public laws and private laws are numbered and organized in chronological order. U.S. Federal statutes are published in a three-part process, consisting of slip laws, session laws ( Statutes at Large ), and codification ( United States Code ). Large portions of public laws are enacted as amendments to the United States Code . Once enacted into law, an Act will be published in
767-573: Is unlawful; it is not a defense that the restraint is reasonable. The defendants were pipemakers who were operating in agreement. When municipalities offered projects available to the lowest bidder , all companies but the one designated would overbid, guaranteeing the success of the designated low bidder if no bidder outside the group submitted a bid. The government argued that some antitrust violations, such as bid rigging, were such egregious anti-competitive acts that they were always illegal (the so-called "per se" rule). The defendants asserted that it
826-708: The Clayton Act created exceptions for certain union activities, but the Supreme Court ruled in Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering that the actions allowed by the Act were already legal. Congress included provisions in the Norris–La Guardia Act in 1932 to more explicitly exempt organized labor from antitrust enforcement, and the Supreme Court upheld these exemptions in United States v. Hutcheson 312 U.S. 219 . To determine whether
885-405: The Statutes at Large and will add to, modify, or delete some part of the United States Code. Provisions of a public law that contain only enacting clauses, effective dates, and similar matters are not generally codified . Private laws also are not generally codified. Some portions of the United States Code have been enacted as positive law and other portions have not been so enacted. In case of
944-678: The Statutes at Large includes the text of the Declaration of Independence , Articles of Confederation , the Constitution , amendments to the Constitution , treaties with Native American nations and foreign nations, and presidential proclamations . Sometimes very large or long Acts of Congress are published as their own "appendix" volume of the Statutes at Large . For example, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
1003-729: The Statutes at Large . Since 1985 the Statutes at Large have been prepared and published by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Until 1948, all treaties and international agreements approved by the United States Senate were also published in the set, but these now appear in a publication titled United States Treaties and Other International Agreements , abbreviated U.S.T. In addition,
1062-499: The United States Congress . Each act and resolution of Congress is originally published as a slip law , which is classified as either public law (abbreviated Pub.L.) or private law (Pvt.L.), and designated and numbered accordingly. At the end of a congressional session, the statutes enacted during that session are compiled into bound books, known as "session law" publications. The United States Statutes at Large
1121-482: The Act preempts a state law , courts will engage in a two-step analysis, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Norman Williams Co. The antitrust laws allow coincident state regulation of competition. The Supreme Court enunciated the test for determining when a state statute is in irreconcilable conflict with Section 1 of the Sherman Act in Rice v. Norman Williams Co. Different standards apply depending on whether
1180-569: The Clayton Act. The amendment proscribed certain anti-competitive practices in which manufacturers engaged in price discrimination against equally-situated distributors. The federal government began filing cases under the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. Some cases were successful and others were not; many took several years to decide, including appeals. Notable cases filed under the act include: Congress claimed power to pass
1239-500: The District of Columbia. Section 1: Section 2: The Clayton Antitrust Act , passed in 1914, proscribes certain additional activities that had been discovered to fall outside the scope of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Clayton Antitrust Act added certain practices to the list of impermissible activities: The Clayton Antitrust Act specifically states that unions are exempt from this ruling. The Robinson–Patman Act of 1936 amended
SECTION 20
#17327919810871298-577: The Robinson-Patman and Sherman Acts" should be preempted. In both New Motor Vehicle and Exxon , the Court upheld the statutes and rejected the arguments presented as Merely another way of stating that the ... statute will have an anticompetitive effect. In this sense, there is a conflict between the statute and the central policy of the Sherman Act – 'our charter of economic liberty'. ... Nevertheless, this sort of conflict cannot itself constitute
1357-507: The Sherman Act through its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce . Therefore, federal courts only have jurisdiction to apply the Act to conduct that restrains or substantially affects either interstate commerce. (Congress also has ultimate authority over economic rules within the District of Columbia and US territories under the 17th enumerated power and the Territorial Clause , respectively.) This requires that
1416-440: The Sherman Act was adopted, there were only a few federal statutes imposing penalties for obstructing or misusing interstate transportation. With an expanding commerce, many others have since been enacted safeguarding transportation in interstate commerce as the need was seen, including statutes declaring conspiracies to interfere or actual interference with interstate commerce by violence or threats of violence to be felonies. The law
1475-448: The Sherman Act, 21 Cong.Rec. 2456. It was in this sense of preventing restraints on commercial competition that Congress exercised "all the power it possessed." Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, supra, 286 U. S. 435. At Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. United States , 85 F.2d 1, affirmed , 175 U. S. 175 U.S. 211; At Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States , 221 U. S. 1 , 221 U. S. 54 -58. The Sherman Act
1534-462: The Sherman Act, the statute "appears firmly anchored to the assumption that the Sherman Act will deter any attempts by the appellants to preserve their ... price level [in one state] by conspiring to raise the prices at which liquor is sold elsewhere in the country". Thus, Seagram indicates that when conduct required by a state statute combines with other conduct that, taken together, constitutes an illegal restraint of trade, liability may be imposed for
1593-457: The States, and the States have no authority to legislate in respect of commerce between the several States or with foreign nations. See also the statement on the floor of the House by Mr. Culberson, in charge of the bill, There is no attempt to exercise any doubtful authority on this subject, but the bill is confined strictly and alone to subjects over which, confessedly, there is no question about
1652-662: The authority to publish the Statutes at Large to the Government Printing Office under the direction of the Secretary of State. Pub. L. 80–278 , 61 Stat. 633, was enacted July 30, 1947 and directed the Secretary of State to compile, edit, index, and publish the Statutes at Large . Pub. L. 81–821 , 64 Stat. 980, was enacted September 23, 1950 and directed the Administrator of General Services to compile, edit, index, and publish
1711-505: The authority to regulate purely private agreements, banning defendants' cartel would infringe liberty of contract because the defendants' cartel purportedly set reasonable prices. The defendants' last argument was that their cartel did not directly restrain trade but was simply a partial restraint, which ensured the defendants merely a reasonable rate of return and thus would have been enforceable at common law. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Peckham, rejected all three arguments and affirmed
1770-474: The bill which was adopted without change, declared: No attempt is made to invade the legislative authority of the several States or even to occupy doubtful grounds. No system of laws can be devised by Congress alone which would effectually protect the people of the United States against the evils and oppression of trusts and monopolies. Congress has no authority to deal, generally, with the subject within
1829-529: The conduct unreasonably restrains trade. The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply. "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve
Sherman Antitrust Act - Misplaced Pages Continue
1888-575: The courts in the first instance to say how far they could carry it or its particular definitions as applicable to each particular case as the occasion might arise." Similarly Senator Hoar, a member of that committee who with Senator Edmunds was in charge of the bill, stated United States Statutes at Large The United States Statutes at Large , commonly referred to as the Statutes at Large and abbreviated Stat. , are an official record of Acts of Congress and concurrent resolutions passed by
1947-466: The decision of the Court of Appeals. Peckham conceded that the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution likely anticipated that the Commerce Clause would authorize mainly Congressional interdiction of state-created barriers to interstate commerce. At the same time, Peckham observed that in some cases, purely private agreements can have the same economic impact and directly restrain commerce among
2006-400: The effect unreasonably restrains trade, and is therefore a violation, can preemption occur. The third case cited to support the "anticompetitive effect" guideline is Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter , in which the Court rejected a facial Sherman Act preemption challenge to a statute requiring that persons selling liquor to wholesalers affirm that the price charged was no higher than
2065-415: The employer. Therefore, reasonable restraints were permitted, but this would only apply if the restraint was ancillary to the main purpose of the agreement. No conventional restraint of trade can be enforced unless it is both ancillary to the main purpose of the lawful contract and necessary to protect the enjoyment of legitimate fruits of the contract or protect from the danger of unjust use of those fruits by
2124-431: The judgment that such cases are not sufficiently common or important to justify the time and expense necessary to identify them". Another important, yet, in the context of Rice , ambiguous guideline regarding preemption by Section 1 is the Court's statement that a "state statute is not preempted by the federal antitrust laws simply because the state scheme might have an anticompetitive effect". The meaning of this statement
2183-503: The legislative power of Congress. And see the statement of Senator Edmunds, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee which reported out the bill in the form in which it passed, that in drafting that bill the committee thought that "we would frame a bill that should be clearly within our constitutional power, that we would make its definition out of terms that were well known to the law already, and would leave it to
2242-428: The lowest price at which sales were made anywhere in the United States during the previous month. Since the attack was a facial one, and the state law required no per se violations, no preemption could occur. The Court also rejected the possibility of preemption due to Sherman Act violations stemming from misuse of the statute. The Court stated that rather than imposing "irresistible economic pressure" on sellers to violate
2301-426: The market through misconduct, which generally consists of conspiratorial conduct of the kind forbidden by Section 1 of the Sherman Act, or Section 3 of the Clayton Act. While the Act was aimed at regulating businesses, its prohibition of contracts restricting commerce was applied to the activities of labor unions until the 1930s. This is because unions were characterized as cartels as well (cartels of laborers). In 1914
2360-400: The market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services, all of which had come to be regarded as a special form of public injury. For that reason the phrase "restraint of trade," which, as will presently appear, had a well understood meaning in common law, was made the means of defining the activities prohibited. The addition of the words "or commerce among the several States"
2419-547: The other party. If the primary purpose is to restrain trade, then the agreement is invalid, and in this case, the restraint was direct and therefore invalid. The opinion was written by Chief Judge William Howard Taft (who later became President of the United States and then Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court). Taft's reasoning was subsequently adopted by the Supreme Court as
Sherman Antitrust Act - Misplaced Pages Continue
2478-602: The plaintiff must show that the conduct occurred during the flow of interstate commerce or had an appreciable effect on some activity that occurs during interstate commerce. A Section 1 violation has three elements: A Section 2 monopolization violation has two elements: Section 2 also bans attempted monopolization, which has the following elements: Violations of the Sherman Act fall (loosely) into two categories: A modern trend has increased difficulty for antitrust plaintiffs as courts have come to hold plaintiffs to increasing burdens of pleading. Under older Section 1 precedent, it
2537-599: The proper interpretation of the Sherman Act. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court as Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. United States , 175 U.S. 211 (1899). However, on appeal, the defendants did not attack the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit. Instead, they argued that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution did not empower Congress to regulate purely private agreements but instead authorized Congress only to remove barriers to interstate commerce erected by individual states. They argued that even if Congress possessed
2596-612: The relevant market. The Act authorizes the Department of Justice to bring suits to enjoin (i.e. prohibit) conduct violating the Act, and additionally authorizes private parties injured by conduct violating the Act to bring suits for treble damages (i.e. three times as much money in damages as the violation cost them). Over time, the federal courts have developed a body of law under the Sherman Act making certain types of anticompetitive conduct per se illegal, and subjecting other types of conduct to case-by-case analysis regarding whether
2655-402: The required conduct violates Section 1 and the statute is in irreconcilable conflict with the Sherman Act. Then statutory arrangement is analyzed to determine whether it qualifies as "state action" and is thereby saved from preemption. Rice sets out guidelines to aid in preemption analysis. Preemption should not occur "simply because in a hypothetical situation a private party's compliance with
2714-402: The restraint without requiring preemption of the state statute. Rice v. Norman Williams Co. supports this misuse limitation on preemption. Rice states that while particular conduct or arrangements by private parties would be subject to per se or rule of reason analysis to determine liability, "[t]here is no basis ... for condemning the statute itself by force of the Sherman Act." Thus, when
2773-500: The several states. Moreover, Peckham also held that contracts that directly restrain trade are not the sort of ordinary contracts and combinations that find shelter in liberty of contract. Finally, Peckham held that the defendants' cartel directly restrained trade. Peckham quoted extensively from Judge Taft's opinion below, which found, as a matter of fact, that the defendant's cartel set unreasonable prices. See 85 F. 291–93. In particular, Peckham quoted Taft's finding that pipe produced by
2832-494: The statute might cause him to violate the antitrust laws". This language suggests that preemption occurs only if economic analysis determines that the statutory requirements create "an unacceptable and unnecessary risk of anticompetitive effect", and does not occur simply because it is possible to use the statute in an anticompetitive manner. It should not mean that preemption is impossible whenever both procompetitive and anticompetitive results are conceivable. The per se rule "reflects
2891-685: The statute permitted "auto dealers to invoke state power for the purpose of restraining intrabrand competition". In Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland , oil companies challenged a state statute requiring uniform statewide gasoline prices in situations where the Robinson-Patman Act would permit charging different prices. They reasoned that the Robinson-Patman Act is a qualification of our "more basic national policy favoring free competition" and that any state statute altering "the competitive balance that Congress struck between
2950-457: The statutory conduct combines with other practices in a larger conspiracy to restrain trade, or when the statute is used to violate the antitrust laws in a market in which such a use is not compelled by the state statute, the private party might be subjected to antitrust liability without preemption of the statute. The Act was not intended to regulate existing state statutes regulating commerce within state borders. The House committee, in reporting
3009-503: The trial judge, Charles Wyzanski , composed the market only of alarm companies with services in every state, tailoring out any local competitors; the defendant stood alone in this market, but had the court added up the entire national market, it would have had a much smaller share of the national market for alarm services that the court purportedly used. The appellate courts affirmed this finding; however, today, an appellate court would likely find this definition to be flawed. Modern courts use
SECTION 50
#17327919810873068-400: The use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition." At Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader 310 U.S. 469 , 310 U. S. 492 -93 and n. 15: The legislative history of the Sherman Act, as well as the decisions of this Court interpreting it, show that it was not aimed at policing interstate transportation or movement of goods and property. The legislative history and
3127-434: The voluminous literature which was generated in the course of the enactment and during fifty years of litigation of the Sherman Act give no hint that such was its purpose. They do not suggest that, in general, state laws or law enforcement machinery were inadequate to prevent local obstructions or interferences with interstate transportation, or presented any problem requiring the interposition of federal authority. In 1890, when
3186-481: Was a reasonable restraint of trade and that the Sherman Act could not have meant to prevent such restraints. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit noted that it would be impossible for the Sherman Act to prohibit every restraint of trade for that would even encompass employment contracts, which, by their nature, restrain the employee from working elsewhere while they are being paid to work for
3245-444: Was enacted in the era of "trusts" and of "combinations" of businesses and of capital organized and directed to control of the market by suppression of competition in the marketing of goods and services, the monopolistic tendency of which had become a matter of public concern. The goal was to prevent restraints of free competition in business and commercial transactions which tended to restrict production, raise prices, or otherwise control
3304-603: Was not an additional kind of restraint to be prohibited by the Sherman Act, but was the means used to relate the prohibited restraint of trade to interstate commerce for constitutional purposes, Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 U. S. 427, 286 U. S. 434, so that Congress, through its commerce power, might suppress and penalize restraints on the competitive system which involved or affected interstate commerce. Because many forms of restraint upon commercial competition extended across state lines so as to make regulation by state action difficult or impossible, Congress enacted
3363-415: Was not intended to impact market gains obtained by honest means, by benefiting the consumers more than the competitors. Senator George Hoar of Massachusetts , another author of the Sherman Act, said the following: ... [a person] who merely by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist...(but was if) it involved something like
3422-449: Was not settled how much evidence was required to show a conspiracy. For example, a conspiracy could be inferred based on parallel conduct, etc. That is, plaintiffs were only required to show that a conspiracy was conceivable. Since the 1970s, however, courts have held plaintiffs to higher standards, giving antitrust defendants an opportunity to resolve cases in their favor before significant discovery under FRCP 12(b)(6). That is, to overcome
3481-417: Was published as volume 68A of the Statutes at Large (68A Stat. 3 ). Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. United States Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States , 175 U.S. 211 (1899), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that for a restraint of trade to be lawful, it must be ancillary to the main purpose of a lawful contract . A naked restraint on trade
#86913