lafayette louisiana power light argued october decided march petitioner cities operate electric utility systems within beyond respective city limits authorized louisiana law brought action district respondent electric utility petitioners compete alleging committed various federal antitrust offenses injured petitioners operation electric utility systems respondent counterclaimed alleging petitioners committed various antitrust offenses injured respondent business property petitioners moved dismiss counterclaim ground cities subdivisions state state action doctrine parker brown rendered federal antitrust laws inapplicable district granted motion appeals reversed remanded held apart whether petitioners exempt antitrust laws agents state parker doctrine insufficient grounds inferring congress intend subject cities antitrust liability pp definition person persons covered antitrust laws clearly includes cities whether municipal utility operators suing plaintiffs seeking damages antitrust violations operators sued defendants chattanooga foundry pipe works atlanta georgia evans pp petitioners failed show existence overriding public policy inconsistent construction coverage antitrust laws presumption implied exclusion laws negated either ground anomalous subject municipalities antitrust liability ground antitrust laws intended protect public abuses private power action municipalities exist serve public weal pp justice brennan joined justice marshall justice powell justice stevens concluded parker brown automatically exempt antitrust laws governmental entities whether state agencies subdivisions state simply reason status exempts anticompetitive conduct engaged act government state sovereign subdivisions pursuant state policy displace competition regulation monopoly public service pp appeals err holding inquiry made determine whether petitioners actions directed state since state directed authorized anticompetitive practice state subdivisions exercising delegated power must obey antitrust laws subordinate governmental unit claim parker immunity readily established claim state government sued adequate state mandate anticompetitive activities cities subordinate governmental units exists found authority given governmental entity operate particular area legislature contemplated kind action complained pp chief justice agreeing directions remand part iii represent minimum required establish exemption insist state compel alleged anticompetitive activity cities demonstrate exemption essential state regulatory scheme pp brennan announced judgment delivered opinion respect part burger marshall powell stevens joined opinion respect parts ii iii marshall powell stevens joined marshall filed concurring opinion post burger filed opinion concurring part concurring judgment post stewart filed dissenting opinion white rehnquist joined part blackmun joined post blackmun filed dissenting opinion post jerome hochberg argued cause petitioners briefs james fairman ivor armistead iii andrew carter argued cause respondent brief william tete william crisp argued cause national rural electric cooperative assn et al amici curiae urging affirmance brief robert tisinger james eddleman davidson pinckney roberts clair solicitor general mccree acting assistant attorney general shenefield barry grossman filed brief amicus curiae urging affirmance frederick searls michael graney filed brief columbus southern ohio electric et al amici curiae justice brennan delivered opinion part together opinion parts ii iii justice marshall justice powell justice stevens joined parker brown held federal antitrust laws prohibit state sovereign imposing certain anticompetitive restraints act government question case extent antitrust laws prohibit state cities imposing anticompetitive restraints petitioner cities organized laws state louisiana grant power operate electric utility systems within beyond city limits petitioners brought action district eastern district louisiana alleging among others louisiana power light lp investorowned electric service utility petitioners compete areas beyond city limits committed various antitrust offenses injured petitioners operation electric utility systems lp counterclaimed seeking damages injunctive relief various antitrust offenses petitioners allegedly committed injured business property petitioners moved dismiss counterclaim ground cities subdivisions state louisiana state action doctrine parker brown rendered federal antitrust laws inapplicable district granted motion holding decision appeals fifth circuit saenz university interscholastic league required dismissal notwithstanding hese plaintiff cities engaging clearly business activity profit realized reason reluctant hold antitrust laws apply state activity app emphasis original district case read saenz interpret state action exemption requiring holding purely state government activities subject requirements antitrust laws app thereby making petitioners status cities determinative maintenance antitrust suits appeals fifth circuit reversed remanded proceedings appeals noted district acted decision goldfarb virginia state bar held taken together parker brown goldfarb require following analysis subordinate state governmental body ipso facto exempt operation antitrust laws rather district must ask whether state legislature contemplated certain type anticompetitive restraint opinion though necessary point express statutory mandate act alleged violate antitrust laws suffice challenged activity clearly within legislative intent thus trial judge may ascertain authority given governmental entity operate particular area legislature contemplated kind action complained hand goldfarb connection legislative grant power subordinate entity asserted use power may tenuous permit conclusion entity intended scope activity encompassed conduct whether governmental body actions comprehended within powers granted legislature course determination made specific facts case district judge inquiry point broad enough include evidence might show scope legislative intent footnotes omitted petitioners principal argument since city merely subdivision state exercises power delegated state parker findings regarding congressionally intended scope sherman act apply equal force political subdivisions brief petitioners addressing question however shall address contention implicit petitioners arguments brief apart question exemption agents state parker doctrine congress never intended subject local governments antitrust laws antitrust laws impose liability create cause action damages person persons defined acts since held definition person persons embraces cities understandable cities argue persons within meaning antitrust laws section sherman act ch stat ed clayton act stat ed general definitional sections define person persons wherever used act include corporations associations existing authorized laws either laws territories laws state laws foreign country section clayton act stat ed provides pertinent part ny person shall injured business property reason anything forbidden antitrust laws may sue therefor district shall recover threefold damages sustained chattanooga foundry pipe works atlanta held municipality person within meaning sherman act general definitional section city atlanta therefore maintain action predecessor clayton act supplier city purchased water pipe used furnish water municipal utility service years later georgia evans held words person sherman act included decision state georgia permitted bring action name charging injury combination fix prices suppress competition market asphalt state purchased annually use construction public roads reasoned othing act history policy justify restrictive construction word exclude state although chattanooga foundry georgia evans involved public bodies plaintiffs whereas petitioners instant case defendants counterclaim basis decisions plainly precludes reading person persons include municipal utility operators sue plaintiffs include municipal operators sued defendants thus conclusion antitrust laws construed meant congress subject cities liability antitrust laws must rest impact overriding public policy negates construction coverage upon reading person persons including petitioners suggest several reasons addition arguments exemption agents state parker doctrine congressional purpose subject cities antitrust laws inferred arguments like parker exemption necessarily must considered light presumption implied exclusions coverage antitrust laws purposes intended scope sherman act developed prior cases require brief mention commenting upon language act rejecting claim insurance business excluded coverage stated language comprehensive difficult conceive face shows carefully studied attempt bring within act every person engaged business whose activities might restrain monopolize commercial intercourse among underwriters subsequent cases reviewing legislative history sherman act concluded congress exercising full extent constitutional power sought establish regime competition fundamental principle governing commerce country reason cases held even congress subsequent legislation establishes regulatory regime area commercial activity antitrust laws displaced unless appears antitrust regulatory provisions plainly repugnant philadelphia nat bank collecting cases presumption repeal implication reflects understanding antitrust laws establish overarching fundamental policies principle argues equal force implied exclusions see goldfarb two policies held sufficiently weighty override presumption implied exclusions coverage antitrust laws eastern railroad presidents conf noerr motor freight held regardless anticompetitive purpose intent concerted effort persons influence lawmakers enact legislation beneficial detrimental competitors within scope antitrust laws although nothing language statute history indicate congress considered exclusion impact two correlative principles held require conclusion presumption support finding coverage first contrary construction impede open communication polity lawmakers vital functioning representative democracy second least equal significance threat constitutionally protected right petition contrary construction entail parker brown identified second overriding policy namely dual system government constitution sovereign save congress may constitutionally subtract authority unexpressed purpose nullify state control officers agents lightly attributed congress common two implied exclusions potential conflict policies signal importance national traditions governmental structure federalism even however recognized exclusions unavailing prevent antitrust enforcement though implicating fundamental policies thought severely impinge upon see goldfarb supra california motor transport trucking unlimited petitioners arguments therefore prevail unless demonstrate countervailing policies sufficiently weighty overcome presumption turn consideration whether apart question exemption agents state parker doctrine petitioners made showing petitioners argue exclusion must inferred anomalous subject municipalities criminal civil liabilities imposed upon violators antitrust laws short answer regarded anomalous require compliance municipalities substantive standards federal laws impose sanctions upon persons see union pacific see generally ohio helvering california cases necessarily require conclusion remedies appropriate redress violations private corporations equally appropriate municipalities need decide question remedy case petitioners next argue antitrust laws intended protect public abuses private power actions municipalities exist serve public weal petitioners contention goal private profit public service partly correct every business enterprise public private operates business furtherance goals case municipally owned utility goal likely broadly speaking benefit citizens economic choices made public corporations conduct business affairs designed assure maximum benefits community constituency inherently likely comport broader interest national economic private corporations acting furtherance interests organization shareholders allegations counterclaim present purposes accept true aptly illustrate impact local governments acting providers services may individuals business enterprises interrelate purchasers suppliers sometimes competitors lp alleged city plaquemine contracted provide lp electric customers outside city limits gas water service condition customers purchase electricity city lp effect twofold first tying contract might injure former lp customers two ways net effect tying contract might increase cost electric service customers moreover municipality conceivably might charge discriminatorily higher rates captive customers outside jurisdiction without basis practices provide maximum benefits constituents disserving interests affected customers second practice necessarily impact regulated public utility whose service displaced elimination customers established service area likely reduce revenues possibly require abandonment loss existing equipment effect reduce rate base possibly affect capital structure surviving customers bear brunt consequences decision displace existing service rather made basis efficiency distribution services may made municipality interest realizing maximum benefits without regard extraterritorial impact regional efficiency second allegation lp counterclaim petitioners conspired others engage sham frivolous litigation lp various federal agencies federal courts purpose effect delaying approval construction lp proposed nuclear electric generating plant alleged course conduct designed deprive lp needed financing impose delay costs amounting million effectively block construction proposed project activity may benefit citizens plaquemine lafayette eliminating competitive threat expansion municipal utilities still undeveloped areas beyond cities territorial limits kind activity truly anticompetitive may impose enormous unnecessary costs potential customers nuclear generating facility within beyond cities proposed area expansion addition may cause significant injury lp interfering ability provide expanded service another aspect argument government subject political control welfare citizens assured political process federal antitrust regulation therefore unnecessary argument consumers dissatisfied service provided municipal utilities may seek redress political process without merit petitioners recognize must consumers living outside municipality forced take municipal service political recourse municipal level argue nevertheless customers may take complaints state legislature fairly may questioned whether consumers question florida corporation lp subsidiary meaningful chance influencing state legislature outlaw ad hoc basis whatever anticompetitive practices petitioners may direct time time fundamentally however argument cuts far broadly argument may made regarding anticompetitive activity corporation engages mulcted consumers unfairly displaced competitors may always seek redress political process enacting sherman act however congress mandated competition polestar must guided ordering business affairs leave fundamental national policy vagaries political process established broad policy administered neutral courts guarantee every enterprise right exercise whatever economic muscle muster topco associates without regard amount influence might local state legislatures different units local government country number special districts defined goal goals provision one several services remaining represented number counties municipalities townships broad authority general governance subject limitations one way another imposed state units may participate affect economic life nation great number variety ways bodies act owners providers services fully capable aggrandizing economic units interrelate potential serious distortion rational efficient allocation resources efficiency free markets regime competition embodied antitrust laws thought engender municipalities free make economic choices counseled solely parochial interests without regard anticompetitive effects serious chink armor antitrust protection introduced odds comprehensive national policy congress established conclude additional arguments implying exclusion local governments antitrust laws must rejected therefore turn petitioners principal argument parker findings regarding congressionally intended scope sherman act apply equal force political subdivisions brief petitioners ii plainly petitioners error arguing parker held governmental entities whether state agencies subdivisions state simply reason status exempt antitrust laws parker brown involved california agricultural prorate act enacted california legislature program enforced action state officials restrict competition among growers raisins maintain prices distribution commodities packers held program prohibited federal antitrust laws since nothing language sherman act history suggests purpose restrain state officers agents activities directed legislature state sovereign imposed restraint act government sherman act undertake prohibit goldfarb virginia state bar underscored significance parker holding determinant exemption whether challenged action act government state sovereign parker repeatedly emphasized anticompetitive effects california prorate program derived state command state adopted organized enforced program execution governmental policy goldfarb hand presented question whether schedule lawyers published fairfax county bar association enforced virginia state bar violated sherman act exemption claimed ground virginia state bar state agency law virginia legislature empowered virginia regulate practice law assigned state bar role regulation administrative agency virginia virginia statute referred lawyers fees virginia taken action requiring use adherence schedules goldfarb therefore held said anticompetitive effects schedules directed state acting sovereign state bar though acting within broad powers voluntarily joined essentially private anticompetitive activity executing mandate state thus actions state bar failed meet threshold inquiry determining anticompetitive activity state action type sherman act meant proscribe goldfarb therefore made clear purposes parker doctrine every act state agency state sovereign bates state bar arizona involved actions state agency parker exemption applied bates considered applicability antitrust laws ban attorney advertising directly imposed arizona holding antitrust laws inapplicable bates noted hat ultimate body wielding state power practice law see ariz art bailey thus restraint compelled direction state acting sovereign quoting goldfarb supra emphasized moreover significance conclusion fact state policy requiring anticompetitive restraint part comprehensive regulatory system one clearly articulated affirmatively expressed state policy state policy actively supervised state policymaker decisions require rejection petitioners proposition status automatically affords governmental entities state action exemption parker limitation exemption applied goldfarb bates official action directed state arises basis state action doctrine given dual system government constitution sovereign save congress may constitutionally subtract authority congressional purpose subject antitrust control acts government lightly inferred extend doctrine municipalities inconsistent limitation cities sovereign receive federal deference create see edelman jordan lincoln county luning political subdivisions protected eleventh amendment immunity suit federal parker limitation exemption official action directed state consistent fact subdivisions generally treated equivalents light serious economic dislocation result cities free place parochial interests nation economic goals reflected antitrust laws see supra especially unwilling presume congress intended exclude anticompetitive municipal action reach hand fact municipalities simply status within parker doctrine necessarily mean anticompetitive activities subject antitrust restraints since unicipal corporations instrumentalities state convenient administration government within limits louisiana ex rel folsom mayor new orleans actions municipalities may reflect state policy therefore conclude parker doctrine exempts anticompetitive conduct engaged act government state sovereign subdivisions pursuant state policy displace competition regulation monopoly public service remains question whether appeals erred holding inquiry made determine whether petitioners actions directed state iii petitioners brother stewart dissent focus arguments upon fact municipalities may exercise sovereign power state concluding actions municipalities take necessarily reflect state policy must therefore fall within parker doctrine fact governmental bodies sued cities substantially less statewide jurisdiction significance cities status state law equally free approach policy decision way anticompetitive restraints adopted policy one may express preference rather state therefore absence evidence state authorized directed given municipality act actions particular city hardly found pursuant state command restraints state sovereign imposed said state policy may neutral permit municipalities shielded antitrust laws circumstances impair goals congress sought achieve laws see supra without furthering policy underlying parker exemption mean however political subdivision necessarily must able point specific detailed legislative authorization properly may assert parker defense antitrust suit subordinate governmental unit claim parker immunity readily established claim state government sued agree appeals adequate state mandate anticompetitive activities cities subordinate governmental units exists found authority given governmental entity operate particular area legislature contemplated kind action complained parker doctrine understood preserves freedom dual system federalism use municipalities administer state regulatory policies free inhibitions federal antitrust laws without time permitting purely parochial interests disrupt nation goals brother stewart dissent argues result reach greatly impair ability state delegate governmental power broadly municipalities post omitted respect simply hyperbole decision render state less able allocate governmental power political subdivisions means state directed authorized anticompetitive practice state subdivisions exercising delegated power must obey antitrust laws dissent notwithstanding far late argue state desire insulate anticompetitive practices imposed act government falls within parker doctrine schwegmann calvert distillers moreover characterizing parker exemption fully applicable local governmental units simply virtue status approach taken dissent hold anticompetitive municipal action free federal antitrust enforcement even state statutes specifically provide municipalities shall subject antitrust laws see generally la rev stat ann west supp quoted supra result perversion federalism today decision threaten legitimate exercise governmental power preclude municipal government providing services monopoly basis parker progeny make clear state properly may parker bates direct authorize instrumentalities act way reflect state policy inconsistent antitrust laws compare bates goldfarb true even lawful monopolist may subject antitrust restraints seeks extend exploit monopoly manner contemplated authorization cf otter tail power assuming municipality authorized provide service monopoly basis limitations municipal action hobble execution legitimate governmental programs affirmed footnotes la rev stat ann west west complaint named parties defendant utilities florida corporation lp subsidiary central louisiana electric gulf utilities louisiana texas corporations respectively engaged generation transmission sale electric power wholesale retail louisiana lp allege directly competes city lafayette allege city plaquemine imposed tying arrangements injured see respondent second amended counterclaim app affidavit wyatt senior vice president lp petitioners complaint charged defendants conspired restrain trade attempted monopolize monopolized generation transmission distribution electric power preventing construction operation competing utility systems improperly refusing wheel power foreclosing supplies markets served defendants engaging boycotts petitioners utilizing sham litigation improper means prevent financing construction electric generation facilities beneficial petitioners counterclaim amended alleged petitioners together nonparty electric cooperative conspired engage sham litigation lp prevent financing purpose effect delaying preventing construction nuclear plant eliminate competition within municipal boundaries use covenants respective debentures exclude competition certain markets using supply agreements displace lp certain areas requiring customers lp purchase electricity petitioners condition continued water gas service saenz action manufacturer alleged conspiracy state agency university interscholastic league uil director private competitor saenz effect rejection saenz products use interscholastic competition among texas public schools saenz appeals affirmed district dismissal action uil director ground state agency state official answerable sherman act word exemption commonly used courts shorthand expression parker holding sherman act intended congress prohibit anticompetitive restraints imposed california case entering order dismissing counterclaim district made express determination reason delay expressly directed entry judgment plaintiffs pursuant fed rule civ proc action designated dismissal final appealable order see liberty mutual ins wetzel word person persons used repeatedly antitrust statutes examples see ed every person shall make contract engage combination conspiracy hereby declared illegal shall deemed guilty felony ed every person shall monopolize attempt monopolize combine conspire person persons monopolize part trade commerce among several foreign nations shall deemed guilty felony ed every person making contract engaging combination conspiracy restraint trade territory district columbia shall deemed guilty felony ed defining word person persons ed declaring illegal every contract combination conspiracy restraint trade persons corporations engaged importing articles providing person engaged shall guilty misdemeanor section sherman act provides full word person persons wherever used act shall deemed include corporations associations existing authorized laws either laws territories laws state laws foreign country section remained unchanged since enactment section clayton act defines word person persons language identical sherman act also remained unchanged since enactment section quoted full infra section sherman act ch stat repealed provided full person shall injured business property person corporation reason anything forbidden declared unlawful act may sue therefor circuit district defendant resides found without respect amount controversy shall recover three fold damages sustained costs suit including reasonable attorney fee section clayton act provides full person shall injured business property reason anything forbidden antitrust laws may sue therefor district district defendant resides found agent without respect amount controversy shall recover threefold damages sustained cost suit including reasonable attorney fee section remained unchanged since enactment made applicable antitrust statutes clayton act congress wished exempt municipal service operations coverage antitrust laws done without ambiguity act may ch stat ed grants limited exemption certain institutions purchases supplies use provisions clayton act amended act stat ed otherwise make unlawful supplier grant institution induce discriminatory discount respect supplies congress expressly included public libraries exemption public libraries definition operated local government see office education biennial surveys education ch library service office education ch statistical summary education library assn bull see mandeville island farms american crystal sugar antitrust laws general sherman act particular magna carta free enterprise important preservation economic freedom system bill rights protection fundamental personal freedoms freedom guaranteed every business matter small freedom compete assert vigor imagination devotion ingenuity whatever economic muscle muster topco associates see also mine workers pennington pennington held regardless anticompetitive purpose effect small competing mining companies joint action certain large mining companies labor unions lobbying secretary labor favor legislation establishing minimum wage employees contractors selling coal tennessee valley authority lobbying tva avoid coal purchases exempted legislation subject antitrust attack cases subsequent pennington emphasized possible constitutional infirmity antitrust laws contrary construction entail light serious threat first amendment freedoms presented see continental ore union carbide carbon california motor transport trucking unlimited stewart concurring judgment see also olsen smith union pacific considered applicability city elkins act stat amended stat statute definitional language similar used sherman act makes unlawful person persons corporation offer grant give solicit accept receive rebate concession discrimination respect transportation property interstate foreign commerce covered common carrier emphasis added kansas city hereinafter kansas decided develop public levee metropolitan rail food terminal wholesale retail produce markets kansas constructed operated owned market financing development municipal revenue bonds another city kansas city mo hereinafter missouri also operated rail food terminal within metropolitan area kansas believed insufficient business metropolitan area support markets developed plan induce missouri produce dealers lease facilities offering cash payments temporary reduction abatement rent payments exceeded amounts needed compensate merchants costs moving settlement existing leases disruption business kansas adopted payment plan resolution legality kansas law sustained kansas quo warranto proceeding state ex rel parker kansas city missouri terminal served number railroads kansas terminal served virtually exclusively union pacific railroad merchants moved missouri kansas union pacific traffic necessarily increased railroads shrank charged effect kansas concessions merchants permit ship produce union pacific cheaply competing railroads serving missouri terminal effect amounted rebate union pacific tariffs district permanently enjoined kansas giving cash rental credits missouri dealers move moving kansas appeal kansas argued concessions lawful state law enjoined making argued municipality person within meaning statute therefore subject act terms private corporation see brief appellants pp brief see generally held municipality person subject act modification important upheld permanent injunction justice roberts dissent made argument made cities statutory phrase every person sufficiently specific justify conclusion congress wished subject municipal corporations officers criminal penalties act provided significant cities argument rejected context antirebate provisions elkins act statute essentially antitrust provision serving purposes provisions act accord slater antitrust government action formula narrowing parker brown nw rev ohio helvering sustained federal tax liability imposed upon state ohio business distributor alcoholic beverages statute rev stat imposed tax upon person sells offers sale alcoholic beverages applicable definitional section rev stat provided otherwise distinctly expressed manifestly incompatible intent thereof word person used title shall construed mean include partnership association company corporation well natural person helvering stated hether word person corporation includes state depends upon connection word found held state becomes dealer intoxicating liquors falls within reach tax either person statutory extension word include corporation person without regard extension california held city state subject shipping act stat amended making unlawful certain practices person defined including corporations partnerships associations existing authorized laws state question remedy arise district appeals remand determines petitioners activities prohibited antitrust laws cf hospital building rex hospital trustees use allegations counterclaim ready convenient example kinds activities municipality may engage operation utility business anticompetitive effect transcending municipal borders see generally duke foerster new mexico american petrofina hecht app see respondent second amended counterclaim app one commentator noted cases indicate protection injury buyer one purpose rule tying arrangements equally important need protect competing sellers competition unrelated merits product involved concomitantly protect market distortion turner validity tying arrangements antitrust laws harv rev utilities louisiana subject regulation louisiana public utilities commission municipally owned utilities subject jurisdiction puc hence apparently need conform expansion policies whatever plans puc might deem advisable coordinating service see infra see respondent answer counterclaim app counterclaim alleged petitioners engaged sham litigation securities exchange commission federal power commission atomic energy commission department justice see generally california motor transport trucking unlimited petitioners urged antimonopoly principles antitrust laws inconsistent nature government operating monopoly public interest suggest apply antitrust principles local governments necessarily interfere execution governmental programs agree acting agents direction state local governments free implement state policies without subject antitrust laws extent state see infra hand hinder governmental programs require cities authorized provide services monopoly basis refrain example predatory conduct directed state prohibitions sherman act stated terms precision crystal clarity act define consequence vagueness language perhaps uncalculated courts left give content statute performance function appropriate courts interpret word light legislative history particular evils legislation aimed see debates cong rec hoar autobiography seventy years senator edmunds interstate trust commerce act rev careful earnest consideration judiciary committee senate agreed every member quite impracticable include specific description acts come within meaning purpose words trade commerce trust words restraint monopolize precise definitions truly matters judicial consideration see also senator hoar senator edmunds probably drafted bill see walker history sherman law cong rec undertook law clothe courts power impose department justice duty preventing combinations restraint trade apex hosiery leader argument also made context anticompetitive actions engaged state rejection argument however inconsistent parker doctrine parker reason political redress adequate substitute direct enforcement antitrust laws rather parker held absence congressional intent contrary purpose antitrust laws used strike state regulatory program imposed act government inferred extent actions state subdivisions actions state parker exemption applies see infra bureau census census governments governmental organization figure represents total county municipal township special district governments include independent school districts course much narrowly defined range functions powers local governmental units generally see see see see apex hosiery leader supra reviewing legislative history see topco associates apex hosiery leader supra mandeville island farms american crystal sugar state regulatory program involved parker furthered important state interest consistent federal policy see parker plurality opinion cantor detroit edison also analyzed state action exemption claim terms whether challenged anticompetitive action taken pursuant state command detroit edison electric utility regulated michigan charged independent seller light bulbs antitrust violations operation program provided light bulbs without extra cost electricity customers detroit edison relying parker defended ground program included rate filed approved state public service commission state law required follow terms tariff long effect cantor rejected claim holding since michigan statutes regulated industry since neither michigan legislature public service commission passed upon desirability program commission approval detroit edison program implement statewide policy relating light bulbs state policy neutral question whether utility program chief justice joining plurality opinion agreed analysis cantor analysis however necessarily applicable cantor concerned whether anticompetitive activity purely private parties engaged circumstances case insulated antitrust enforcement situation involved hand presents issue circumstances state subdivisions engaging anticompetitive activities deemed acting agents state petitioners argue goldfarb like cantor detroit edison supra expresses limitation upon circumstances private parties may immunized suit antitrust laws seek avoid holding goldfarb suggesting state bar although state agency law acting official capacity somehow state agency official actions issuing ethical opinions see benefited discouraging price competition think obvious fact ancillary effect state bar policy even conscious desire part may benefit lawyers regulated transmute state bar official actions private organization addition decision case every appeals considered immunity state instrumentalities goldfarb regarded held anticompetitive actions state instrumentality compelled state acting sovereign immune antitrust laws fairfax fairfax hospital concurring opinion kurek pleasure driveway park cert pending duke foerster acknowledgment brother stewart dissent post noted indian towing government partly public partly private depending upon governmental pedigree type particular activity manner government conducts citation omitted discloses fallacy effort distinguish goldfarb ground although state bar state agency limited purposes price fixing fostered private benefit members actions essentially private professional group post without explication brother stewart dissent reliance basically irrelevant body law eleventh amendment unfounded ibid rather statement unfounded longstanding principle congress well aware see lincoln county luning political subdivisions sovereign certainly nothing national league cities usery even remotely suggested contrary search vain anything case establishes constructional principle presumptive congressional deference behalf cities indeed emphasis today conclusion municipalities exempt antitrust enforcement acting state agencies implementing state policy extent state makes difficult see national league cities even tangentially implicated state legislatures exercise extensive power constituents various units local government universally leave much policy decisionmaking governmental subdivisions legislators enact many laws attempt reach countless matters local concern necessarily left wholly partly govern local level avery midland county although avery concluded actions local government actions state purposes fourteenth amendment state action required parker different attributes cf edelman jordan indeed state policy may contrary adopted political subdivision yet variety reasons might render local policy unlawful state law example state public utilities commission might adopt though aware louisiana puc done policy prohibiting specific anticompetitive practices municipality engages yet unable enforce policy respect municipalities lacks jurisdiction louisiana puc litigation unrelated case held lack jurisdiction municipal utility systems whether operating within without municipality city monroe louisiana public serv div jud dist case assuming evidence contrary difficult say state policy fosters much less compels anticompetitive practices louisiana rev stat ann west supp provides another illustration fact particular activity subdivision technically power engage necessarily conform may conflict state policy louisiana authorized municipalities create intergovernmental commissions municipal instrumentalities jointly construct operate public services including utilities west supp commissions definition political subdivisions state west supp section nevertheless provides othing chapter shall construed grant immunity behalf public instrumentality antitrust laws state reject petitioners fallback position antitrust claim lie anticompetitive municipal action though state directed lawful state law see schwegmann calvert distillers northern securities cf union pacific discussed supra see also supra restating theme made rejected see cantor detroit edison stewart dissenting brother stewart dissent post likens judicial enforcement antitrust laws regime substantive due process used federal judges strike state municipal economic regulation thought unfair analogy course ignores congressional judgment mandating broad scope enforcement antitrust laws simply reflects dissent view enforcement respect cities unwise majority dissent disagreed otter tail whether specific practices plaintiffs complained regarded unlawful anticompetitive restraints light existence federal regulation agreement lawful monopolist violate antitrust laws compare stewart concurring part dissenting part may certain activities might appear anticompetitive engaged private parties take different complexion adopted local government see generally posner proper relationship state regulation federal antitrust laws rev justice marshall concurring agree chief justice post implied state action exemption antitrust laws broader necessary serve state legitimate purposes join plurality opinion however test established relating whether state policy displace competition ante incorporates within core chief justice concern plurality opinion makes clear enough state desire insulate anticompetitive practices ante antitrust exemption state must impose practices act government ibid state action involving anticompetitive restraint necessary effectuate governmental purposes must viewed inconsistent plurality approach chief justice burger concurring opinion part judgment case turns district explicit conclusion unchallenged hese plaintiff cities engaging clearly business activity activity profit realized nothing parker brown progeny suggests proprietary enterprise inherent capacity economically disruptive anticompetitive effects exempt sherman act merely organized state law municipality parker case involving suit state officials administering state program conceded purpose replacing competition segment agricultural market regime governmental regulation instant lawsuit entirely different arises respondent took perfectly natural step answering federal antitrust complaint filed competitors counterclaim alleging serious violations sherman act nothing record support assumption ordinary dispute among competitors market true petitioners municipalities ignore reality difference cities entrepreneur economic community indeed injuries alleged petitioners complaint read litany economic woes suffered business unfairly treated competitor direct proximate result unlawful conduct hereinabove alleged plaintiffs prevented continue prevented profitably expanding businesses lost continue lose profits resulted operation expanded efficient lower cost business deprived continue deprived economies financing operation systems sustained continue sustain losses value businesses properties incurred continue incur excessive costs expenses otherwise incurred app emphasis added indicated concurring cantor detroit edison interpreting parker heretofore focused challenged activity upon identity parties suit approach surely logical light fact congress passed sherman act likely never considered kinds problems generated parker cases arisen wake bates state bar arizona cantor supra goldfarb virginia state bar see slater antitrust government action formula narrowing parker brown nw rev even dubious assume congress specifically focused attention possible liability utility operated subdivision state generally considered free regulate commerce within borders see knight kidd pearson manufacturing enterprises taken interstate commerce time parker decided however narrow view interstate commerce broadened via affection doctrine include intrastate events sufficient effect interstate commerce see nlrb fainblatt cf hospital building rex hospital trustees given development interpretation person persons sherman act include municipalities ante along trend allowing reach sherman act expand broadening conceptions congressional power commerce clause see rex hospital trustees supra one might reasonably wonder reached result parker holding parker perfectly understandable though light historical period case decided recently emerged era substantive due process undoubtedly eager commence new round invalidating state regulatory laws federal principles see verkuil state action due process antitrust reflections parker brown colum rev responding concern parker interpretation legislative intent reflects polic signal importance national traditions governmental structure federalism ante dual system government constitution sovereign save congress may constitutionally subtract authority unexpressed purpose nullify state control officers agents lightly attributed congress parker mode analysis sound today surprised neither plurality opinion dissents focus attention aspect parker indeed even puzzling much judicial energy expended deciding question presented parties facts case extent sherman act impinges generally upon monopoly powers state local governments suggested outset issue whether sherman act reaches proprietary enterprises municipalities answer question presented difficult parker decided certainly question state operation common carrier even without profit public function subject federal regulation commerce clause california think unimportant say whether state conducts railroad sovereign private capacity see parden terminal california taylor likewise held ohio helvering state upon engaging business became subject federal statute imposing tax dealing intoxicating liquors although specifically mentioned statute short already recognized purposes federalism difference state entrepreneurial personality sovereign decision parker replace competition regulation see nothing last years question conclusion fact recent decision national league cities usery rekindled commitment tempering commerce clause power limits imposed structure government employs language strikingly similar words chief justice stone parker one thing recognize authority congress enact laws regulating individual businesses necessarily subject dual sovereignty government nation state reside quite another uphold similar exercise congressional authority directed private citizens repeatedly recognized attributes sovereignty attaching every state government may impaired congress congress may lack affirmative grant legislative authority reach matter constitution prohibits exercising authority manner following path outlined lead us logical destination petitioners treated purposes applying federal antitrust laws essentially manner respondent say course conduct petitioners allegedly engaged automatically subject condemnation sherman act recognized cantor detroit edison utilities pose special analytical problems parker may well example state acting sovereign imposed system governmental control order avoid consequences unrestrained competition cantor supra precisely occurred parker question utility action taken pursuant command act government parker prohibited sherman act agree plurality threshold inquiry determining anticompetitive activity state action type sherman act meant proscribe whether activity required state acting sovereign goldfarb emphasis added first final step inquiry cantor recognized economic regulation necessarily suppress competition logical inconsistency requiring firm meet regulatory criteria insofar exercising natural monopoly powers also comply antitrust standards extent engages business activity competitive areas economy therefore remand directing district take additional step beyond merely determining plurality area conflict state regulatory policies federal antitrust laws result state policy displace competition regulation monopoly public service ante supplemental inquiry consist determining whether implied exemption federal law necessary order make regulatory act work even minimum extent necessary district course make formal finding fact effect since counterclaim disposed basis pleadings nonetheless district reasonably conclude matter law cities engaging business activities aim production revenues excess costs certainly case cities attempting provide public service likewise undeniable seek profitable way cities allege complaint example prevented profitably expanding businesses app correct cities ordinarily constrained applying net earnings private corporation detract competitive posture resulting incentive engage anticompetitive practices conceptions limits imposed federalism bound evolve understanding congress power commerce clause evolved consequently since find appropriate allow ambit sherman act expand evolving perceptions congressional power commerce clause similar process occur respect state action analysis parker treat result parker case cast bronze rather scope sherman act power parallel developing concepts american federalism use term proprietary focus attention fact parties competitive relationship constrained necessary federal antitrust laws highly unlikely congress meant impose liability parties possesses means thwart federal antitrust policy justice stewart dissent post attempts blunt analysis noting distinction criticized indian towing suggest however obvious past cases petitioners business activities entitled per se exemption sherman act much quite clear california state operated railroad albeit without profit public function comprehend cities treated different manner authority justice stewart cites contrary lowenstein evans cc sc case state complete monopolization liquor industry challenged violating sherman act circumstance state clearly directed creation monopoly thus bringing matter within parker rationale compare ohio helvering ascertainment dovetails precisely law louisiana recognized powers municipal corporation public private former city represents state discharging duties incumbent upon state latter represents pecuniary proprietary interests individuals held responsibility private person hall shreveport la long line louisiana cases dealing explicitly subject municipally owned electrical utilities holds cities governed rules applicable private corporations individuals see hicks city monroe utilities la elias mayor new iberia la hart lake providence la app bannister city monroe la app agree plurality state may cause certain activities exempt federal antitrust laws virtue articulated policy displace competition regulation require strong showing part defendant state intended thus satisfied plurality appeals apparently highest policymaking body state louisiana merely contemplated activities undertaken cities see ante insist goldfarb virginia state bar state compel anticompetitive activity moreover cities demonstrate exemption part regulatory scheme supersede competition essential state plan consequently disagree terms plurality remand simply ask stronger showing part cities join judgment however directions remand represent minimum believe demand petitioners cantor mode analysis effectively answered detroit edison claim required state law engage allegedly anticompetitive activities infer red state policy neutral question whether utility program opinion stevens emphasis added opinion burger consequently said exemption necessary order make regulatory act work justice stewart justice white justice blackmun justice rehnquist join dissenting parker brown california statute restricted competition among raisin growers order keep price raisins artificially high found california program violate antitrust laws act government sherman act undertake prohibit parker brown thus made clear restraint upon trade monopolization result valid governmental action opposed private action violation sherman act made eastern railroad presidents conf noerr motor freight principle parker brown controls case petitioners governmental bodies private persons actions act government parker brown held subject sherman act instead applying parker doctrine today imposes new unjustifiable limits upon according plurality governmental action henceforth immune antitrust laws authorized directed state pursuant state policy displace competition regulation monopoly public service ante direction state apparently exist shown authority given governmental entity operate particular area legislature contemplated kind action complained ante exclusive focus legislative mandate plurality effectively limited governmental action immunity parker case acts state legislature sharp think unjustifiable departure prior cases chief justice adopts different approach broader narrower plurality view municipalities subject antitrust liability engage proprietary enterprises ante apparently retain antitrust immunity types activity city engaged proprietary activity treated private corporation immune antitrust laws shows merely action required state acting sovereign also immunity necessary order make state regulatory act work ante chief justice approach seems mistaken plurality fundamental error opinions plurality chief justice failure recognize difference private activities authorized regulated government one hand actions government determining whether actions political subdivision state well state legislature immune sherman act must interpret provisions act light legislative history particular evils legislation aimed apex hosiery leader particular evils include acts governmental bodies rather congress concerned attacking concentrations private economic power unresponsive public needs great trusts great corporations large moneyed institutions cong rec recognizing congressional intent parker brown held antitrust laws apply private governmental action program issue fact established california legislature one political subdivisions nowhere held actions municipal governments equally immune antitrust laws contrary expressly equated state municipality parker opinion repeatedly carefully emphasized california program action private persons individual corporate distinction established parker brown one actions state legislature governmental units rather drew line private action governmental action doubt side line petitioners actions fall municipal corporations instrumentalities state convenient administration government within limits louisiana ex rel folsom mayor new orleans cf reynolds sims powers delegated state subdivision act exercise state sovereign power avery midland county breard alexandria city governments unaccountable public subject direct popular control electorates state legislature thus far cry private accumulations wealth sherman act intended regulate plurality today advances two reasons holding nonetheless parker doctrine inapplicable municipal governments first plurality notes municipalities claim state sovereign immunity eleventh amendment ante hardly relevant question whether within reach sherman act question must answered reference congressional intent constitutional principles apply entirely different situations constitutional analogies looked decision much directly related case eleventh amendment national league cities usery case like one involved exercise congress power commerce clause held political subdivisions must given equal deference plurality advance basis disregard national league cities reliance instead basically irrelevant body law eleventh amendment secondly plurality relies goldfarb virginia state bar goldfarb case however overrule parker brown rather applied goldfarb concerned scheme regulating economic competition among private parties namely lawyers held private anticompetitive activity sheltered umbrella parker doctrine unless compelled state since bar association state bar show schedule complemented actions state scheme immune antitrust laws cf schwegmann calvert distillers unlike goldfarb case involve anticompetitive activity private persons noted bates state bar arizona actions governmental bodies present entirely different case falling squarely within rule parker brown although state bar goldfarb state agency limited purposes price fixing fostered private benefit members actions essentially private professional group cf asheville tobacco board trade ftc unlike city virginia state bar surely political subdivision state requiring city show legislative mandate activity plurality today blurs indeed erase logical distinction private governmental action goldfarb cantor detroit edison held private action must compelled state legislature order escape reach sherman act state compulsion appropriate requirement private persons claim anticompetitive actions state since state immunize private anticompetitive conduct merely permitting senseless require showing state compulsion state acts one governmental subdivisions see new mexico american petrofina separate opinion chief justice rely distinctions political subdivisions purports find simpler reason subjecting petitioners antitrust liability despite fact governmental bodies namely parker brown protect state entrepreneurial personality ante distinction substantial basis disregarding governmental action immunity case reasons advanced plurality state may choose regulate private persons providing certain goods services may provide goods services state regulatory body former case utility latter necessarily make economic decisions decisions may responsive similar concerns may similar anticompetitive effects yet according chief justice former type governmental decision immune antitrust liability latter basis distinction either sherman act prior cases interpreting contrary parker brown established governmental actions regulated sherman act see supra previously said government partly public partly private depending upon governmental pedigree type particular activity manner government conducts federal crop insurance merrill hand hard think governmental activity operational level present concern uniquely governmental sense kind one time another conceivably privately performed indian towing moreover scope immunity envisioned chief justice virtually impossible determine distinction proprietary governmental activities aptly described quagmire distinctions finespun capricious almost incapable held mind adequate formulation separate opinion chief justice nothing make distinctions substantial understandable indeed even moment consideration range services provided today governments shows difficult determine whether proprietary example city state decides provide water service citizens cost monopoly basis action characterized proprietary whether proprietary surely act government petitioners actions case cf lowenstein evans cc chief justice like plurality ignores seems controlling distinction case private governmental action ii decision case marks extraordinary intrusion operation state local government country impact hardly overstated federal system state generally free allocate governmental power political subdivisions wishes state may decide permit municipalities exercise police power without obtain approval law legislature local serves important state interests allows state legislature devote time statewide problems without burdened purely local matters allows municipalities deal quickly flexibly local problems today decision demanding extensive legislative control municipal action necessarily diminish extent state share power autonomous local governmental bodies follow plurality emphasis state legislative action vagueness criteria announces first clear plurality opinion whether municipal government actions immune sherman act merely authorized state legislature whether must legislatively directed order enjoy immunity plurality uses terms interchangeably different meanings see cantor detroit edison municipality merely authorized state statute provide monopoly service thus certain subject antitrust liability second plurality gives indication specifically legislature direction must relate action complained reference facts case show elusive plurality test stripped essentials counterclaim alleged petitioners engaged sham litigation maintained monopolies debenture covenants foreclosed competition supply contracts tied sale gas water sale electricity broadly speaking actions characterized bringing lawsuits issuing bonds providing electric gas service activities authorized state statutes affirming judgment appeals makes evident consider statutes alone sufficient mandate cities hand plurality city need point specific detailed legislative authorization properly may assert parker defense antitrust suit ante thus seems petitioners need identify statute compelling lawsuit contract debenture covenant intermediate showing legislative authorization approval command meet plurality test unable fathom finally state statutes often enacted little recorded legislative history bare words statute often unilluminating interpreting legislative intent example louisiana statutes permitting petitioners operate public utilities contemplate petitioners might tie sale gas sale electricity statutes indeed contemplate electric service provided city residents monopoly basis without legislative history relevant statutory language answer questions purely creation judicial imagination practical result uncertainties today opinions plurality emphasis state legislative action prudent municipality probably believe compelled seek passage state statute requiring engage activity might considered anticompetitive time city grants exclusive franchise chooses provide service monopoly basis refuses grant zoning variance business even alleged case brings litigation behalf citizens state legislative action necessary ensure federal subsequently decide activity contemplated legislature thus effect today decision greatly impair ability state delegate governmental power broadly municipalities extensive interference fundamentals state government proper function federal judiciary today decision cause excessive judicial interference procedures state makes governmental decisions substance well accorded wide latitude regulation local economies new orleans dukes manner structure delivery governmental services citizens require national league cities usery antitrust liability today imposes municipal governments sharply limit latitude first vagueness uncertainty new test antitrust immunity bound discourage state agencies subdivisions experimentation innovative social economic programs exercise powers local governmental entities often take actions might violate antitrust laws taken private persons granting exclusive franchises enacting restrictive zoning ordinances providing public services monopoly basis city contemplating action interest citizens able today risk discovering late federal believes insufficient statutory direction existed activity proprietary nature second imposition antitrust liability activities municipal governments allow sort inquiry reasonableness state regulations forsworn example new orleans dukes supra city ordinance preserve character historic area prohibited sale food pushcarts unless vendor business least eight years challenged equal protection clause fourteenth amendment upheld constitutional validity ordinance appears dukes proceeded antitrust laws claimed ordinance unreasonably anticompetitive limit number pushcart vendors might well prevailed unless new orleans establish louisiana legislature contemplated exclusion pushcart vendors historic area wide latitude regulation local economies exercised dukes city power regulate delegated thus wholly stifled application antitrust laws finally today decision impose staggering costs thousands municipal governments country case atypical antitrust action respondent claimed suffered damages million result one antitrust violations alleged trebled amounts million claim alone recovered cities combined population judgment magnitude assure bankruptcy almost municipality might rendered even petitioners ultimately prevail citizens bear rapidly mounting costs antitrust litigation increased taxes decreased services prospect city closing schools discharging policemen curtailing fire department order defend antitrust suit surely dismay congress enacted sherman act reasons discussed opinion respectfully dissent justice blackmun joins part opinion plurality acknowledges ante parker brown create exemption antitrust laws simply recognized intent congress sherman act apply governmental action thus hard understand plurality invokes doctrine exemptions antitrust laws lightly implied subsequent enactment regulatory statute rule effects accommodation two federal statutes rests principle implied repeals favored relevance parker doctrine based interpretation sherman act see also cong rec practice becoming common large corporations single persons large wealth arranging dictate people country shall pay purchase shall receive sell cong rec transaction purpose extort community monopolize segregate apply individual use purposes individual greed wealth properly lawfully public interest generally diffused whole community remarks george sherman act enacted deal combinations individuals corporations private business advantage long recognized eastern railroad presidents conf noerr motor freight apex hosiery leader standard oil see cantor detroit edison assumed california program violate sherman act organized made effective solely virtue contract combination conspiracy private persons individual corporate noted program never intended operate force individual agreement combination found nothing sherman act legislative history suggest intended restrain state action official action directed state rather act intended suppress combinations restrain competition attempts monopolize individuals corporations prohibition individual state action see also trenton new jersey hunter pittsburgh mayor ray wall bradford shreveport cf barnes district columbia mayor ray supra east hartford hartford bridge louisiana law petitioners powers subject complete legislative control see bradford shreveport supra particular factual legal context important shown fact provisions constitution municipality equated state waller florida double jeopardy clause avery midland county fourteenth amendment trenton new jersey supra impairment contract clause see also doran salem inn worcester street see schwegmann calvert distillers northern securities however district conclusion ante petitioners electric utility service business activity engaged profit supported evidence since case decided motion dismiss indeed challenged petitioners reply brief course fact heavily relied upon plurality chief justice actions cities may anticompetitive effects misses point whole issue today whether conduct concededly subject private individual liability anticompetitive nature proscribed antitrust laws undertaken city various places separate opinion chief justice refers business activit ies profit realized proprietary enterprises activities inherent capacity economically disruptive anticompetitive effects integral operation area traditional government functions prerogative state case involving state liquor monopoly cited approval parker brown see lockport citizens community action avery midland county local broadest home rule municipalities almost entirely free legislative control local matters see vanlandingham municipal home rule wm mary rev although petitioners home rule cities louisiana constitution home rule provision la const art la const art xiv constitutions statutes least note antitrust law municipal corporations geo chief justice joined portions plurality opinion discuss necessary show challenged activity required state apparently require still stronger hence less justifiable showing state legislative compulsion ante la rev stat ann west inhabitants city shall continue body politic corporate present name may sue sued may acquire condemnation otherwise construct lease operate regulate public utilities within without corporate limits city subject restrictions imposed general law protection communities may borrow money faith credit city issue sale bonds notes evidences debt see also la rev stat ann west west plurality suggestion louisiana legislature expressed state policy activities cities subject antitrust laws ante erroneous irrelevant louisiana rev stat ann west supp applies municipalities utility commissions created jointly several cities counties comparable statute applicable petitioners moreover applicability federal antitrust laws matter federal state law conversely state restrictions municipal action matter state federal law state bring person conduct within coverage federal law congress done exempt person conduct operation federal law congress provided otherwise cf schwegmann calvert distillers imposes yet another unwarranted limitation upon governmental immunity antitrust laws apparently municipality claim immunity state legislature mandated action pursuant state policy displace competition regulation monopoly public service ante plurality opinion see ante opinion burger even louisiana state legislature passed law specifically compelling petitioners litigate effort prevent respondent constructing nuclear generating facility compelling insert restrictive covenants debentures compelling tying arrangements complained law fairly described displac ing competition regulation monopoly public service thus deny cities immunity actions even compelled state controlled see price bitner effective legal research ed see supra problem statutory interpretation exacerbated fact today decision retroactive application two senses first antitrust liability premised actions occurred past second many statutes governing contemporary future municipal activities enacted years ago thus municipalities faced difficult problem establishing antitrust immunity based statutes enacted without foreknowledge criteria announced today vagueness test proposed separate opinion chief justice see supra add confusion city trying protect antitrust liability see whitworth perkins imposing antitrust liability proprietary governmental activities test adopted opinion chief justice deter choosing provide services rather regulating others see sailors board education williams eggleston see also baker carr cases cited frankfurter dissenting plurality emphasis legislative action also leaves doubt status state delegations power administrative agencies unless show legislature directed actions course defeats whole purpose establishing agencies see new state ice liebmann brandeis dissenting ferguson skrupa department commerce bureau census census population number inhabitants summary table indicates remedy treble damages might appropriate antitrust actions municipality ante language clayton act ed mandatory face requires ny person shall injured business property reason anything forbidden antitrust laws shall recover threefold damages sustained emphasis supplied legislative history cited justice blackmun post demonstrates congress understood provision mandatory refused change say basis district possibly disregard clear statutory command cf perma life mufflers international parts legal fees defend one current antitrust suit estimated least million dollars month times june section liability course ruinous private corporation well private corporation organized purpose seeking private profit surely different city providing essential governmental functions shareholders stand relation corporation residents taxpayers city live investment corporation essentially business decision shareholder takes risks corporate losses hope corporate profits citizen relationship city government obviously far different justice blackmun dissenting join justice stewart dissent exception part wish note take opinion reaching question whether petitioners immune sherman act even found acting concert private parties grant immunity municipalities circumstance go beyond protections previously accorded officials see parker brown question state municipality becoming participant private agreement combination others restraint trade cf union pacific appeals opportunity rule conspiracy private parties exception municipalities general immunity limited indeed exception appropriate view municipalities subject full reach sherman act liability commanded majority remand consideration limited exception order light fact plurality chief justice concluded municipalities subject broad sherman act liability must question nonchalance puts aside question remedy ante grave act make governmental units potentially liable massive treble damages however proprietary activities may seem fundamental responsibilities citizens provision services police fire protection several occasions past found congress intended subject municipalities liability persons corporations provide support today holding plurality opinion pretend ante nn cites previous constructions elkins act federal tax sellers alcoholic beverages shipping act financial penalties available acts even approach magnitude remedy provided antitrust laws come grips plainly mandatory language clayton act ed person shall injured business property reason anything forbidden antitrust laws shall recover threefold damages sustained emphasis supplied repeated occasions congress rejected proposals make remedy discretionary one thing leave open question remedy conceivable defense damages whose theory consistent mandatory language clayton act case private utilities subject state tariffs conduct required state law hence involuntary see cantor detroit edison opinion concurring judgment quite another delay question remedy absence suggested basis defense especially prospect insolvency petitioner cities threaten welfare inhabitants sensible course seems consider range liability light range defendants sherman act penalties appropriate respondent seeks treble damages excess million case divided among plaquemine lafayette residents penalty exceed family four federal tax sellers alcoholic beverages ed construed ohio helvering potential liability state ohio retail wholesale outlet shipping act ed construed california violation misdemeanor punishable fine arguable support lies elkins act construed union pacific even potential liability municipality acting common carrier fine illegal transportation rebates received municipality three times amount rebate even municipality held operating common carrier act potential financial liability limited fine actual damages caused prohibited conduct sess sess sess sess sess see also hearings subcommittee house committee judiciary sess hearings antitrust subcommittee house committee judiciary