cantor
detroit
edison
argued
january
decided
july
respondent
private
utility
sole
supplier
electricity
southeastern
michigan
also
furnishes
residential
customers
without
additional
charge
almost
frequently
used
light
bulbs
longstanding
practice
antedating
state
regulation
electric
utilities
marketing
practice
light
bulbs
approved
part
respondent
rate
structure
michigan
public
service
commission
may
changed
unless
respondent
files
commission
approves
new
tariff
petitioner
retail
druggist
selling
light
bulbs
brought
action
respondent
claiming
using
monopoly
power
distribution
electricity
restrain
competition
sale
light
bulbs
violation
sherman
act
district
entered
summary
judgment
petitioner
holding
authority
parker
brown
commission
approval
respondent
marketing
practices
exempted
practices
federal
antitrust
laws
appeals
affirmed
held
neither
michigan
approval
respondent
present
tariff
fact
program
may
terminated
new
tariff
filed
sufficient
basis
implying
exemption
federal
antitrust
laws
program
pp
state
participation
decision
exchange
program
dominant
unfair
hold
private
party
responsible
conduct
implementing
decision
rather
respondent
participation
decision
sufficiently
significant
require
conduct
like
comparable
conduct
unregulated
businesses
conform
applicable
federal
law
pp
michigan
regulation
respondent
distribution
electricity
poses
necessary
conflict
federal
requirement
respondent
activities
competitive
markets
satisfy
antitrust
standards
merely
certain
conduct
may
subject
state
regulation
federal
antitrust
laws
necessarily
mean
must
satisfy
inconsistent
standards
even
assuming
inconsistency
mean
federal
interest
must
inevitably
subordinated
state
moreover
even
assuming
congress
intend
antitrust
laws
apply
areas
economy
primarily
regulated
state
enforcement
antitrust
laws
foreclosed
essentially
unregulated
area
electric
market
pp
stevens
delivered
opinion
brennan
white
marshall
joined
except
parts
ii
iv
burger
joined
burger
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
concurring
part
post
blackmun
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
post
stewart
filed
dissenting
opinion
powell
rehnquist
joined
post
burton
weinstein
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
robert
holstein
michael
sklar
david
nelson
george
reycraft
argued
cause
respondent
brief
donald
baker
leon
cohan
dean
landau
solicitor
general
bork
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
brief
assistant
attorney
general
kauper
barry
grossman
carl
lawson
howard
trienens
argued
cause
michigan
bell
telephone
et
al
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
brief
theodore
miller
john
buresh
sumner
katz
filed
brief
national
association
regulatory
utility
commissioners
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
parker
brown
held
sherman
act
violated
state
action
displacing
competition
marketing
raisins
case
must
decide
whether
parker
rationale
immunizes
private
action
approved
state
must
continued
state
approval
remains
effective
michigan
public
service
commission
pervasively
regulates
distribution
electricity
within
state
also
given
approval
marketing
practice
substantial
impact
otherwise
unregulated
business
distributing
electric
light
bulbs
assuming
arguendo
approved
practice
unreasonably
restrained
trade
market
district
appeals
held
authority
parker
commission
approval
exempted
practice
federal
antitrust
laws
questioned
applicability
parker
situation
granted
certiorari
reverse
petitioner
retail
druggist
selling
light
bulbs
claims
respondent
using
monopoly
power
distribution
electricity
restrain
competition
sale
bulbs
violation
sherman
act
discovery
argument
connection
defendant
motion
summary
judgment
limited
stipulation
issue
raised
commission
approval
respondent
program
state
facts
pertinent
issue
assume
without
opining
without
approval
antitrust
violation
exist
extent
facts
disputed
must
resolve
doubts
favor
petitioner
since
summary
judgment
entered
first
describe
respondent
lamp
exchange
program
next
discuss
holding
parker
brown
consider
whether
holding
extended
cover
case
finally
comment
briefly
additional
authorities
respondent
relies
respondent
detroit
edison
distributes
electricity
electric
light
bulbs
five
million
people
southeastern
michigan
marketing
area
respondent
sole
supplier
electricity
supplies
consumers
almost
light
bulbs
use
frequently
customers
billed
electricity
consume
pay
separate
charge
light
bulbs
respondent
rates
including
omission
separate
charge
bulbs
approved
michigan
public
service
commission
may
changed
without
commission
approval
respondent
must
therefore
continue
program
files
new
tariff
new
tariff
approved
commission
respondent
predecessor
following
practice
providing
limited
amounts
light
bulbs
customers
without
additional
charge
since
state
michigan
began
regulation
electric
utilities
michigan
public
service
commission
first
approved
tariff
filed
respondent
setting
forth
program
thereafter
commission
approval
respondent
tariffs
included
implicit
approval
program
commission
also
approved
respondent
decision
eliminate
program
large
commercial
customers
elimination
service
customers
became
effective
part
general
rate
reduction
customers
respondent
provided
residential
customers
bulbs
cost
accounting
michigan
public
service
commission
respondent
included
amount
portion
cost
providing
service
customers
respondent
accounting
records
reflect
direct
profit
result
distribution
bulbs
purpose
program
according
respondent
executives
increase
consumption
electricity
effect
program
according
petitioner
foreclose
competition
substantial
segment
market
distribution
electricity
michigan
pervasively
regulated
michigan
public
service
commission
michigan
statute
vests
commission
complete
power
jurisdiction
regulate
public
utilities
state
statute
confers
express
power
commission
regulate
rates
fares
fees
charges
services
rules
conditions
service
matters
pertaining
formation
operation
direction
public
utilities
respondent
advises
us
heart
commission
function
regulate
furnishing
electricity
production
light
heat
power
distribution
electric
light
bulbs
michigan
unregulated
statute
creating
commission
contains
direct
reference
light
bulbs
far
advised
michigan
statute
authorize
regulation
business
neither
michigan
legislature
commission
ever
made
specific
investigation
desirability
program
possible
effect
competition
market
utilities
regulated
michigan
public
service
commission
follow
practice
providing
bulbs
customers
additional
charge
commission
approval
respondent
decision
maintain
program
therefore
implement
statewide
policy
relating
light
bulbs
infer
state
policy
neutral
question
whether
utility
program
although
statute
commission
rule
policy
prevent
respondent
abandoning
program
merely
filing
new
tariff
providing
proper
adjustment
rates
nevertheless
apparent
existing
tariff
remains
effect
respondent
may
abandon
program
without
violating
commission
order
therefore
without
violating
state
law
therefore
permitted
commission
carry
program
also
required
continue
appropriate
filing
made
received
approval
commission
petitioner
named
public
official
party
litigation
made
claim
representative
state
michigan
acted
unlawfully
ii
parker
brown
considered
whether
sherman
act
applied
state
action
way
sherman
act
question
presented
argued
case
sheds
significant
light
character
concept
embraced
parker
holding
plaintiff
brown
producer
packer
raisins
defendants
california
director
agriculture
public
officials
charged
california
statute
responsibility
administering
program
marketing
crop
raisins
express
purpose
program
restrict
competition
among
growers
maintain
prices
distribution
raisins
packers
nevertheless
district
brown
argue
defendants
violated
sherman
act
sought
injunction
enforcement
program
theory
interfered
constitutional
right
engage
interstate
commerce
attacking
constitutionality
california
statute
regulations
statewide
applicability
district
convened
one
judge
dissenting
district
held
program
violated
commerce
clause
granted
injunctive
relief
defendant
state
officials
took
direct
appeal
probable
jurisdiction
noted
april
heard
oral
argument
commerce
clause
issue
may
meantime
april
held
state
georgia
person
within
meaning
sherman
act
therefore
entitled
maintain
action
treble
damages
georgia
evans
presumably
concerned
relationship
sovereign
antitrust
laws
immediately
set
parker
brown
reargument
motion
requested
solicitor
general
file
brief
amicus
curiae
directed
parties
discuss
question
whether
california
statute
rendered
invalid
sherman
act
supplemental
brief
attorney
general
california
advanced
three
arguments
using
sherman
act
basis
upholding
injunction
entered
district
contended
even
though
state
person
entitled
maintain
action
plaintiff
congress
never
intended
subject
sovereign
state
provisions
sherman
act
california
program
event
violate
federal
statute
since
evidence
argument
pertaining
sherman
act
offered
considered
district
injunction
sustained
antitrust
theory
brief
amicus
curiae
solicitor
general
take
issue
appellants
first
argument
contended
california
program
inconsistent
policy
sherman
act
expressly
disclaimed
argument
state
california
officials
violated
federal
law
later
brief
solicitor
general
drew
important
distinction
economic
action
taken
state
private
action
taken
pursuant
state
statute
permitting
requiring
individuals
engage
conduct
prohibited
sherman
act
solicitor
general
contended
private
conduct
clearly
illegal
recognized
different
problem
existed
respect
state
latter
problem
presented
parker
case
set
aside
injunction
entered
district
portion
opinion
discussing
sherman
act
issue
chief
justice
stone
addressed
first
three
arguments
advanced
california
attorney
general
held
even
though
comparable
programs
organized
private
persons
illegal
action
taken
state
official
pursuant
express
legislative
command
violate
sherman
act
narrow
holding
made
unnecessary
agree
disagree
solicitor
general
view
state
statute
permitting
requiring
private
conduct
prohibited
federal
law
clearly
void
narrow
holding
also
avoided
question
applicability
antitrust
laws
private
action
taken
color
state
law
unquestionably
term
state
action
may
used
broadly
encompass
individual
action
supported
extent
state
law
custom
broad
use
term
familiar
civil
rights
litigation
however
chief
justice
stone
described
parker
opinion
carefully
selected
language
plainly
limited
holding
official
action
taken
state
officials
case
unlike
parker
defendant
private
utility
public
officials
agencies
named
parties
claim
state
action
violated
antitrust
laws
conversely
parker
claim
private
citizen
company
violated
law
sherman
act
issue
decided
whether
sovereign
state
held
person
within
meaning
statute
also
subject
prohibitions
since
case
us
call
question
legality
act
state
michigan
officials
agents
controlled
parker
decision
iii
case
asked
hold
private
conduct
required
state
law
exempt
sherman
act
two
quite
different
reasons
might
support
rule
first
private
citizen
done
nothing
obey
command
state
sovereign
unjust
conclude
thereby
offended
federal
law
second
state
already
regulating
area
economy
arguable
congress
intend
superimpose
antitrust
laws
additional
perhaps
conflicting
regulatory
mechanism
consider
two
reasons
separately
may
assume
arguendo
unacceptable
ever
impose
statutory
liability
party
done
nothing
obey
state
command
assumption
decide
case
indeed
decide
actual
case
typically
cases
kind
involve
blend
private
public
decisionmaking
already
decided
state
authorization
approval
encouragement
participation
restrictive
private
conduct
confers
antitrust
immunity
schwegmann
calvert
invalidated
plaintiff
entire
resale
price
maintenance
program
even
though
effective
throughout
state
louisiana
statute
imposed
direct
restraint
retailers
signed
fair
trade
agreements
cases
initiation
enforcement
program
attack
involved
mixture
private
public
decisionmaking
case
notwithstanding
state
participation
decision
private
party
exercised
sufficient
freedom
choice
enable
conclude
held
responsible
consequences
decision
case
us
also
discloses
program
product
decision
respondent
commission
participated
respondent
maintain
program
without
approval
commission
may
abandon
without
approval
nevertheless
doubt
option
program
primarily
respondent
commission
indeed
respondent
initiated
program
years
regulatory
agency
even
created
nothing
unjust
conclusion
respondent
participation
decision
sufficiently
significant
require
conduct
implementing
decision
like
comparable
conduct
unregulated
businesses
conform
applicable
federal
law
accordingly
even
though
may
cases
state
participation
decision
dominant
unfair
hold
private
party
responsible
conduct
implementing
record
discloses
unfairness
apart
question
fairness
individual
must
conform
state
regulation
federal
antitrust
laws
well
must
consider
whether
congress
intended
superimpose
antitrust
standards
conduct
already
regulated
different
standard
amici
curiae
forcefully
contend
competitive
standard
imposed
antitrust
legislation
fundamentally
inconsistent
public
interest
standard
widely
enforced
regulatory
agencies
essential
teaching
parker
brown
federal
antitrust
laws
applied
areas
economy
pervasively
regulated
state
agencies
least
three
reasons
argument
unacceptable
first
merely
certain
conduct
may
subject
state
regulation
federal
antitrust
laws
necessarily
mean
must
satisfy
inconsistent
standards
second
even
assuming
inconsistency
accept
view
federal
interest
must
inevitably
subordinated
state
finally
even
assume
congress
intend
antitrust
laws
apply
areas
economy
primarily
regulated
state
assumption
foreclose
enforcement
antitrust
laws
essentially
unregulated
area
market
electric
light
bulbs
unquestionably
examples
economic
regulation
purpose
government
control
avoid
consequences
unrestrained
competition
agricultural
marketing
programs
involved
parker
character
economic
regulation
necessarily
suppress
competition
contrary
public
utility
regulation
typically
assumes
private
firm
natural
monopoly
public
controls
necessary
protect
consumer
exploitation
logical
inconsistency
requiring
firm
meet
regulatory
criteria
insofar
exercising
natural
monopoly
powers
also
comply
antitrust
standards
extent
engages
business
activity
competitive
areas
economy
thus
michigan
regulation
respondent
distribution
electricity
poses
necessary
conflict
federal
requirement
respondent
activities
competitive
markets
satisfy
antitrust
standards
mere
possibility
conflict
state
regulatory
policy
federal
antitrust
policy
insufficient
basis
implying
exemption
federal
antitrust
laws
congress
hardly
intended
state
regulatory
agencies
broader
power
federal
agencies
exempt
private
conduct
antitrust
laws
therefore
assuming
situations
existence
state
regulation
give
rise
implied
exemption
standards
ascertaining
existence
scope
exemption
surely
must
least
severe
applied
federal
regulatory
legislation
consistently
refused
find
regulation
gave
rise
implied
exemption
without
first
determining
exemption
necessary
order
make
regulatory
act
work
even
minimum
extent
necessary
application
standard
case
inexorably
requires
rejection
respondent
claim
michigan
regulatory
scheme
conflict
federal
antitrust
policy
conversely
federal
antitrust
laws
construed
outlaw
respondent
program
reason
believe
michigan
regulation
electric
utilities
longer
able
function
effectively
regardless
outcome
case
michigan
interest
regulating
utilities
distribution
electricity
almost
entirely
unimpaired
conclude
neither
michigan
approval
tariff
filed
respondent
fact
program
may
terminated
new
tariff
filed
sufficient
basis
implying
exemption
federal
antitrust
laws
program
iv
dissenting
opinion
voices
legitimate
concern
violation
antitrust
laws
regulated
companies
may
give
rise
massive
treble
damage
liabilities
criticism
inevitably
imprecise
language
sherman
act
consequent
difficulty
predicting
certainty
application
various
specific
fact
situations
value
basic
part
law
however
enabled
withstand
criticism
past
concern
liability
arguable
relevance
case
two
ways
hazard
violating
antitrust
laws
enhanced
fact
regulation
regulated
company
engaged
anticompetitive
conduct
reliance
justified
understanding
conduct
immune
antitrust
laws
concern
punitive
aspects
remedy
appropriate
neither
circumstances
present
case
regulation
merely
takes
form
approval
tariff
proposed
company
surely
increased
company
risk
violating
law
respondent
utility
maintained
program
regulated
approval
program
michigan
commission
provided
company
arguable
defense
antitrust
charge
increase
exposure
liability
utility
fairly
claim
led
believe
conduct
exempt
federal
antitrust
laws
claim
immunity
exemption
nature
affirmative
defense
conduct
otherwise
assumed
unlawful
never
sustained
claim
otherwise
unlawful
private
conduct
exempt
antitrust
laws
permitted
required
state
law
recent
consideration
subject
described
defendant
claim
pointed
precision
exemption
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
explained
question
whether
anticompetitive
activity
required
state
acting
sovereign
threshold
inquiry
determining
whether
state
action
type
sherman
act
meant
proscribe
certainly
careful
use
language
read
guarantee
compliance
state
requirement
automatically
confer
federal
antitrust
immunity
dissenting
opinion
case
makes
much
obvious
fact
parker
brown
implicitly
held
california
program
violation
sherman
act
course
perfectly
true
way
legality
program
may
tested
sherman
act
determining
whether
persons
administer
acted
lawfully
federal
statute
proscribes
conduct
persons
programs
narrow
holding
parker
concerned
legality
conduct
state
officials
charged
law
responsibility
administering
california
program
sort
charge
might
made
various
private
persons
engaged
variety
different
activities
implementing
program
unknown
unknowable
charges
made
even
state
program
held
unlawful
holding
necessarily
supported
claim
private
individuals
merely
conformed
conduct
invalid
program
thereby
violated
sherman
act
unless
answered
question
occasion
consider
affirmative
defense
immunity
exemption
respondent
justifiably
rely
either
holding
eastern
conf
noerr
motors
reference
opinion
parker
holding
noerr
concerted
activities
railroad
defendants
opposing
legislation
favorable
plaintiff
motor
carriers
prohibited
sherman
act
case
involve
question
either
liability
exemption
private
action
taken
compliance
state
law
moreover
nothing
noerr
opinion
implies
mere
fact
state
regulatory
agency
may
approve
proposal
included
tariff
thereby
require
proposal
implemented
revised
tariff
filed
approved
sufficient
reason
conferring
antitrust
immunity
proposed
conduct
passage
quoted
dissent
post
sets
assumed
dichotomy
restraint
imposed
governmental
action
contrasted
one
imposed
private
action
cites
rock
royal
parker
conclusion
former
violate
sherman
act
passing
reference
parker
sheds
light
significance
state
action
amounts
little
approval
private
proposal
surely
qualify
categorical
statement
parker
state
give
immunity
violate
sherman
act
authorizing
violate
declaring
action
lawful
yet
dissent
allow
every
state
agency
grant
precisely
immunity
merely
including
direction
engage
proposed
conduct
approval
order
justice
stewart
separate
opinion
possesses
virtue
announces
simple
rule
easily
applied
case
state
regulatory
agency
approves
proposal
orders
regulated
company
comply
matter
impact
proposal
interstate
commerce
matter
peripheral
casual
state
interests
may
permitting
go
effect
state
act
confer
immunity
liability
rule
supported
wholesome
interest
simplicity
regulation
complex
economy
judgment
however
interest
heavily
outweighed
fact
rule
may
give
host
state
regulatory
agencies
broad
power
grant
exemptions
important
federal
law
reasons
wholly
unrelated
either
federal
policy
even
necessary
significant
state
interest
although
tempting
try
fashion
rule
govern
decision
liability
issue
damages
issue
future
cases
presenting
issues
believe
adhere
settled
policy
giving
concrete
meaning
general
language
sherman
act
process
adjudication
specific
controversies
since
district
yet
addressed
question
whether
complaint
alleged
violation
antitrust
laws
case
remanded
determination
question
proceedings
may
appropriate
reversed
remanded
footnotes
petitioner
complaint
asserts
respondent
program
violates
sherman
act
clayton
act
brief
petitioner
also
argued
program
constitutes
unlawful
tying
violative
sherman
act
complaint
seeks
treble
damages
injunction
permanently
enjoining
respondent
requiring
purchase
bulbs
connection
sale
electrical
energy
complaint
purports
filed
behalf
persons
similarly
situated
record
contains
indication
plaintiff
moved
class
determination
pursuant
fed
rule
civ
proc
respondent
distribute
fluorescent
lights
discharge
lamps
bulbs
types
included
respondent
share
market
respondent
practice
new
residential
customers
provided
bulbs
quantities
may
needed
permanent
fixtures
thereafter
respondent
replaces
residential
customers
burned
light
bulbs
proportion
estimated
use
electricity
lighting
customer
incurs
direct
charge
bulbs
time
furnished
normally
turns
bulbs
obtain
new
supply
see
comp
laws
apparently
many
commercial
customers
use
relatively
large
quantities
fluorescent
lighting
therefore
less
interest
program
amount
paid
three
principal
manufacturers
bulbs
respondent
made
purchases
represented
costs
incurred
use
respondent
personnel
facilities
carrying
program
according
respondent
effect
program
save
consumers
million
year
since
bulbs
receive
cost
cost
million
retail
market
comp
laws
see
brief
respondent
comp
laws
california
agricultural
prorate
act
authorizes
establishment
action
state
officials
programs
marketing
agricultural
commodities
produced
state
restrict
competition
among
growers
maintain
prices
distribution
commodities
packers
declared
purpose
act
conserve
agricultural
wealth
state
prevent
economic
waste
marketing
agricultural
products
state
declared
objective
california
act
prevent
excessive
supplies
agricultural
commodities
adversely
affecting
market
although
statute
speaks
terms
economic
stability
agricultural
waste
rather
price
evident
purpose
effect
regulation
conserve
agricultural
wealth
state
raising
maintaining
prices
without
permitting
unreasonable
profits
producers
title
consistently
read
authorizing
state
statute
sought
enjoined
general
statewide
application
moody
flowers
article
cl
constitution
provides
congress
shall
power
regulate
commerce
foreign
nations
among
several
indian
tribes
also
asked
parties
consider
whether
agricultural
adjustment
act
amended
act
congress
invalidated
california
program
supplemental
briefs
noted
california
program
adopted
collaboration
officials
department
agriculture
aided
loans
commodity
credit
corporation
recommended
secretary
agriculture
facts
emphasized
portions
chief
justice
stone
opinion
discussing
agricultural
adjustment
act
commerce
clause
see
mentioned
connection
discussion
sherman
act
first
order
entered
journal
monday
may
provided
parker
director
agriculture
et
appellants
porter
brown
cause
restored
docket
reargument
october
next
briefs
oral
argument
counsel
parties
requested
discuss
questions
whether
state
statute
involved
rendered
invalid
action
congress
passing
sherman
act
agricultural
adjustment
act
amended
act
congress
solicitor
general
requested
file
brief
amicus
curiae
desires
participate
oral
argument
journal
honorable
earl
warren
later
chief
justice
index
supplemental
brief
california
attorney
general
outlined
discussion
sherman
act
words
sherman
law
california
raisin
program
state
subject
sherman
act
state
seasonal
program
raisins
violate
provisions
sherman
act
sherman
act
circumscribed
rule
reason
federal
legislation
exempting
state
program
laws
may
california
raisin
program
enjoined
present
action
brief
government
stated
sherman
act
terms
define
scope
far
applies
activities
state
governments
nothing
act
precludes
application
programs
sponsored
sections
prohibit
unlawful
conduct
persons
word
person
defined
section
connections
least
may
include
state
georgia
evans
question
face
whether
california
officials
violated
sherman
act
whether
state
program
interferes
accomplishment
objectives
federal
statute
brief
government
stated
state
statute
permitting
requiring
dealers
commodity
combine
limit
supply
raise
price
subject
interstate
commerce
clearly
void
question
whether
state
may
undertake
control
supply
price
commodity
shipped
interstate
commerce
otherwise
restrain
interstate
competition
mandatory
regulation
plain
prorate
program
never
intended
operate
force
individual
agreement
combination
derived
authority
efficacy
legislative
command
state
intended
operate
become
effective
without
command
find
nothing
language
sherman
act
history
suggests
purpose
restrain
state
officers
agents
activities
directed
legislature
dual
system
government
constitution
sovereign
save
congress
may
constitutionally
subtract
authority
unexpressed
purpose
nullify
state
control
officers
agents
lightly
attributed
congress
sherman
act
makes
mention
state
gives
hint
intended
restrain
state
action
official
action
directed
state
suggestion
purpose
restrain
state
action
act
legislative
history
sponsor
bill
ultimately
enacted
sherman
act
declared
prevented
business
combinations
cong
rec
see
also
purpose
suppress
combinations
restrain
competition
attempts
monopolize
individuals
corporations
abundantly
appears
legislative
history
state
adopting
enforcing
prorate
program
made
contract
agreement
entered
conspiracy
restraint
trade
establish
monopoly
sovereign
imposed
restraint
act
government
sherman
act
undertake
prohibit
olsen
smith
cf
lowenstein
evans
see
supra
see
monroe
pape
adickes
kress
brennan
concurring
part
dissenting
part
discussion
sherman
act
issue
parker
brown
chief
justice
stone
made
references
fact
state
action
involved
time
language
carefully
chosen
apply
official
action
opposed
private
action
approved
supported
even
directed
state
thus
references
legislative
command
state
state
officers
agents
activities
directed
legislature
state
control
officers
agents
state
state
action
official
action
directed
state
state
action
state
command
commission
program
committee
state
action
state
created
machinery
establishing
prorate
progam
state
acting
commission
adopts
program
state
exercises
legislative
authority
state
adopting
enforcing
prorate
program
finally
sovereign
imposed
restraint
act
government
cumulative
effect
carefully
drafted
references
unequivocally
differentiates
official
action
one
hand
individual
action
even
commanded
state
hand
indeed
parker
brown
significant
private
participation
formulation
effectuation
proration
program
pointed
approval
program
upon
referendum
prescribed
number
producers
one
conditions
effectuating
program
see
ibid
said
state
may
give
corporation
created
laws
authority
restrain
interstate
international
commerce
nation
lawfully
expressed
congress
northern
securities
parker
opinion
pointed
state
give
immunity
violate
sherman
act
declaring
action
lawful
respondents
arguments
constitute
contention
activities
complemented
objective
ethical
codes
view
state
action
sherman
act
purposes
enough
county
bar
puts
anticompetitive
conduct
prompted
state
action
rather
anticompetitive
activities
must
compelled
direction
state
acting
sovereign
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
see
continental
union
carbide
cf
also
union
pacific
cited
parker
brown
supra
thus
although
private
decision
enforce
statewide
fair
trade
program
approved
state
actually
ineffective
without
statutory
command
adhere
prices
set
plaintiff
rationale
parker
brown
immunize
restraint
quite
contrary
opinion
justice
douglas
cited
parker
proposition
private
conduct
forbidden
sherman
act
even
though
state
compelled
retailers
follow
parallel
price
policy
said
therefore
state
compels
retailers
follow
parallel
price
policy
demands
private
conduct
sherman
act
forbids
see
parker
brown
recently
described
analogous
exercise
public
utility
power
make
business
decisions
subject
commission
approval
jackson
metropolitan
edison
nature
governmental
regulation
private
utilities
utility
may
frequently
required
state
regulatory
scheme
obtain
approval
practices
business
regulated
less
detail
free
institute
without
approval
regulatory
body
approval
state
utility
commission
request
regulated
utility
commission
put
weight
side
proposed
practice
ordering
transmute
practice
initiated
utility
approved
commission
state
action
commission
failure
overturn
practice
amounted
determination
pennsylvania
utility
authorized
employ
practice
desired
respondent
exercise
choice
allowed
state
law
initiative
comes
state
make
action
state
action
purposes
fourteenth
amendment
omitted
conclusion
even
arguably
inconsistent
underlying
rationale
parker
brown
case
california
required
every
raisin
producer
state
comply
proration
program
whereas
michigan
never
required
utility
adopt
program
justice
stewart
pointed
dissenting
opinion
otter
tail
power
reason
regulation
private
utility
rates
state
bodies
commission
inevitability
monopoly
requires
price
control
take
place
price
competition
commenting
possible
conflict
federal
regulatory
policy
federal
antitrust
policy
repeatedly
said
epeal
antitrust
laws
regarded
implied
necessary
make
act
work
even
minimum
extent
necessary
quoting
silver
new
york
stock
exchange
indeed
since
decision
otter
tail
power
supra
doubt
proposition
federal
antitrust
laws
applicable
electrical
utilities
although
dissent
particular
application
statute
case
dissent
basic
proposition
utilities
must
obey
federal
antitrust
laws
respondent
argue
state
regulation
provides
stronger
justification
implied
exemption
federal
regulation
contrary
respondent
relies
heavily
gordon
new
york
stock
exchange
upheld
fixed
commissions
stock
exchange
integral
part
effective
operation
securities
exchange
act
inapplicability
case
manifest
justice
stewart
brief
concurring
opinion
stated
never
held
hold
today
antitrust
laws
inapplicable
anticompetitive
conduct
simply
federal
agency
jurisdiction
activities
one
defendants
implied
repeal
antitrust
laws
may
found
exists
plain
repugnancy
antitrust
regulatory
provisions
philadelphia
nat
bank
mere
existence
commission
reserve
power
oversight
respect
rules
initially
adopted
exchanges
therefore
necessarily
immunize
rules
antitrust
attack
question
presented
present
case
therefore
whether
exchange
rules
fixing
minimum
commission
rates
necessary
make
securities
exchange
act
work
see
supra
recent
cases
make
clear
relevant
aspect
agency
jurisdiction
must
sufficiently
central
purposes
enabling
statute
implied
repeal
antitrust
laws
necessary
make
regulatory
scheme
work
robinson
recent
antitrust
developments
record
national
assn
securities
dealers
pointed
implied
antitrust
immunity
favored
justified
convincing
showing
clear
repugnancy
antitrust
laws
regulatory
system
see
philadelphia
nat
bank
borden
course
absence
exemption
antitrust
laws
mean
laws
violated
concern
repeatedly
prompted
introduction
bills
adopted
make
award
treble
damages
antitrust
litigation
discretionary
rather
mandatory
see
report
attorney
general
national
committee
study
antitrust
laws
see
also
sess
sess
charter
freedom
act
generality
adaptability
comparable
found
desirable
constitutional
provisions
go
detailed
definitions
might
either
work
injury
legitimate
enterprise
particularization
defeat
purposes
providing
loopholes
escape
restrictions
act
imposes
mechanical
artificial
general
phrases
interpreted
attain
fundamental
objects
set
essential
standard
reasonableness
call
vigilance
detection
frustration
efforts
unduly
restrain
free
course
interstate
commerce
seek
establish
mere
delusive
liberty
either
making
impossible
normal
fair
expansion
commerce
adoption
reasonable
measures
protect
injurious
destructive
practices
promote
competition
upon
sound
basis
appalachian
coals
threshold
inquiry
determining
anticompetitive
activity
state
action
type
sherman
act
meant
proscribe
whether
activity
required
state
acting
sovereign
parker
brown
continental
union
carbide
indeed
even
occur
plaintiff
state
officials
might
violated
sherman
act
question
first
raised
actually
reference
primarily
rock
royal
secondarily
parker
see
accept
starting
point
consideration
case
basic
construction
sherman
act
adopted
courts
violation
act
predicated
upon
mere
attempts
influence
passage
enforcement
laws
recognized
least
since
landmark
decision
standard
oil
sherman
act
forbids
trade
restraints
monopolizations
created
attempted
acts
individuals
combinations
individuals
corporations
accordingly
held
restraint
upon
trade
monopolization
result
valid
governmental
action
opposed
private
action
violation
act
made
rock
royal
parker
cited
omitted
justice
stewart
analysis
rests
largely
dubious
assumption
several
steps
implementation
anticompetitive
program
lawful
entire
program
must
equally
lawful
chief
justice
burger
concurring
judgment
except
parts
ii
iv
opinion
concur
judgment
except
parts
ii
iv
opinion
agree
however
parker
brown
logically
limited
suits
state
officials
interpreting
parker
heretofore
focused
challenged
activity
upon
identity
parties
suit
threshold
inquiry
determining
activity
state
action
type
sherman
act
meant
proscribe
whether
activity
required
state
acting
sovereign
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
emphasis
added
reading
parker
part
ii
unnecessary
result
case
decision
simply
address
precise
issue
raised
present
case
need
parker
focus
upon
situation
state
addition
requiring
public
utility
meet
regulatory
criteria
insofar
exercising
natural
monopoly
powers
ante
also
purports
without
independent
regulatory
purpose
control
utility
activities
separate
competitive
markets
today
correctly
concludes
commission
approval
respondent
decision
maintain
program
implement
statewide
policy
relating
light
bulbs
infer
state
policy
neutral
question
whether
utility
program
ante
emphasis
added
justice
blackmun
concurring
judgment
agree
insofar
holds
fact
anticompetitive
conduct
sanctioned
even
required
state
law
put
conduct
beyond
reach
sherman
act
since
opposite
proposition
ground
appeals
affirmed
dismissal
suit
also
agree
judgment
must
reversed
approach
however
somewhat
different
principal
question
case
sherman
act
effect
upon
inconsistent
state
laws
dissent
points
one
congressional
intent
one
denies
congress
wished
override
state
laws
whose
operation
subvert
federal
policy
free
competition
interstate
commerce
discerning
intent
however
find
somewhat
less
assistance
legislative
history
dissent
true
framers
sherman
act
expressed
view
certain
areas
economic
activity
left
entirely
state
regulation
dissent
quotes
several
expressions
post
careful
reading
statements
reveals
however
little
reflect
view
congress
lacked
power
commerce
clause
regulate
economic
activity
within
domain
since
recognized
greatly
expanded
commerce
clause
power
arguably
sherman
act
remained
confined
within
outlines
power
thought
exist
theory
congress
believed
regulate
broadly
must
attempted
bridge
already
crossed
held
congress
intended
reach
sherman
act
expand
along
commerce
power
hospital
building
rex
hospital
trustees
cases
cited
question
case
one
sherman
act
framers
directly
confront
explicitly
address
result
expanding
ambit
sherman
act
bring
conflict
inconsistent
state
law
seems
bridge
also
crossed
schwegmann
calvert
distillers
issue
whether
sherman
act
permitted
enforcement
louisiana
statute
requiring
compliance
liquor
retailers
resale
price
agreements
parties
entered
retailers
wholesale
suppliers
held
louisiana
statute
unenforceable
plausible
reading
decision
statute
sherman
act
northern
securities
effect
defenders
railroad
holding
company
attacked
case
argued
beyond
sherman
act
reach
lawful
corporation
laws
new
jersey
holding
company
nonetheless
held
unlawful
extent
law
new
jersey
forced
give
way
indeed
suppose
degree
implicit
fundamental
operation
sherman
act
state
antitrust
policy
anticompetitive
combinations
kinds
sanctioned
enforced
state
general
contract
corporation
law
yet
never
doubt
combinations
offend
sherman
act
illegal
state
laws
extent
overridden
congress
given
support
view
inconsistent
state
laws
sherman
act
case
state
statutes
held
complete
sway
congress
found
necessary
pass
fair
trade
act
stat
amending
sherman
act
specifically
exempting
latter
operation
certain
price
maintenance
agreements
sanctioned
state
law
instances
congress
acting
protect
anticompetitive
schemes
sherman
act
response
schwegmann
see
congress
passed
mcguire
bill
stat
extending
exemption
state
statutes
enforced
resale
price
agreements
nonsigners
similar
enactment
act
stat
exempting
federal
statutes
law
enacted
state
purpose
regulating
business
insurance
provision
sherman
act
named
federal
statutes
apply
business
specified
date
extent
business
regulated
state
law
express
grants
sherman
act
immunity
seem
significant
stated
borden
construing
immunity
granted
certain
agreements
agricultural
marketing
agreement
act
congress
desired
grant
immunity
congress
doubtless
said
ii
also
agree
justice
stevens
particular
anticompetitive
scheme
attacked
case
must
fall
despite
imprimatur
claims
received
state
michigan
say
sherman
act
generally
inconsistent
state
laws
answer
much
difficult
question
laws
extent
fear
easy
solutions
though
several
suggest
decisive
example
simply
state
law
goes
far
require
rather
simply
authorize
anticompetitive
conduct
question
accepted
prerequisite
antitrust
immunity
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
alone
sufficient
whole
issue
schwegmann
whether
state
require
obedience
fixed
resale
price
arrangement
similarly
compliance
anticompetitive
contract
adherence
illegal
corporate
combination
might
well
required
state
general
contract
corporation
law
neither
decisive
particular
scheme
initiated
private
actors
rather
state
see
difference
degree
private
initiation
marketing
arrangement
approved
parker
brown
properly
approved
think
reasons
set
forth
resale
price
maintenance
scheme
disapproved
schwegmann
case
particular
scheme
initiated
private
actors
invitation
general
statute
may
may
anything
true
northern
securities
true
sure
certain
rough
justice
well
appearance
simplicity
rule
based
upon
actually
responsible
scheme
question
fear
justice
simplicity
prove
illusory
rule
actual
application
every
state
enactment
initiated
way
beneficiaries
scarcely
make
sense
immunize
powerful
enough
speak
entirely
governmental
representatives
matter
stifle
speech
threat
destroy
antitrust
immunity
moreover
process
enactment
likely
involve
complex
interplay
regulating
regulated
impossible
identify
true
initiator
final
ostensibly
simple
solution
find
wanting
insist
degree
affirmative
articulation
state
conscientious
intent
sanction
challenged
scheme
reasons
therefor
also
tempting
solution
particularly
case
little
suggest
least
recent
years
michigan
public
service
commission
even
actively
considered
much
less
articulated
justification
yet
solution
also
lead
perverse
results
regulation
whose
justification
plain
require
explication
vulnerable
questionable
one
immunized
proponents
skill
influence
generate
proper
legislative
history
course
deciding
much
affirmative
articulation
state
policy
enough
simple
matter
apply
least
rule
reason
taking
general
proposition
activity
must
fall
like
potential
harms
outweigh
benefits
mean
private
activity
treated
alike
former
different
fact
state
sanction
figures
powerfully
calculus
harm
benefit
example
justification
scheme
lies
protection
health
safety
strength
justification
forcefully
attested
existence
state
enactment
assess
justifications
enactments
way
done
equal
protection
review
justifications
substantial
one
expect
case
professional
licensing
schemes
example
cf
olsen
smith
reluctant
find
restraint
unreasonable
particularly
strong
justification
exists
scheme
state
effect
substituted
forces
competition
regulates
private
activity
ends
sought
achieved
sherman
act
thus
anticompetitive
scheme
state
institutes
plausible
ground
improve
performance
market
fostering
efficient
resource
allocation
low
prices
scarcely
assailed
one
doubt
legality
detroit
edison
electric
power
monopoly
fear
monopoly
primarily
tendency
charge
excessive
prices
prices
instance
controlled
state
doubt
rule
reason
crystallize
applied
various
per
se
rules
relating
certain
kinds
state
enactments
regulation
classic
natural
monopoly
public
utility
shrink
general
approach
however
seems
constitutionally
mandated
task
one
often
set
us
conflicting
federal
state
laws
balancing
implicated
federal
state
interests
view
assuring
truly
conflict
former
prevail
dissent
fears
score
appear
exaggerated
balancing
harm
benefit
general
process
federal
courts
well
acquainted
antitrust
field
special
problem
assessing
state
interests
determine
whether
strong
enough
prevail
federal
dictates
also
familiar
one
federal
courts
indeed
state
action
interferes
competition
among
citizens
also
among
already
subject
commerce
clause
much
searching
review
state
justifications
proposed
see
dean
milk
madison
state
restriction
sale
milk
locally
processed
held
invalid
reasonable
adequate
alternatives
available
protect
health
interests
southern
pacific
arizona
state
restriction
train
lengths
held
invalid
commerce
clause
state
safety
interest
outweighed
interest
nation
adequate
economical
efficient
railway
transportation
service
iii
standards
present
case
seem
difficult
one
presents
usual
dangers
scheme
principally
respondent
extend
monopoly
sale
electric
power
light
bulbs
sells
better
light
bulbs
light
bulbs
ones
customers
must
pay
light
see
areeda
antitrust
analysis
ed
record
us
scheme
appears
unjustified
doubt
originated
means
promote
electric
power
use
difficult
see
rather
optional
promotional
sale
necessary
end
even
century
laying
aside
question
whether
promotion
greater
electric
power
use
remains
today
plausible
public
goal
respondent
justify
scheme
ground
consumer
savings
light
bulbs
assertedly
cheaper
better
commercially
available
brief
respondent
necessary
pass
along
savings
necessary
order
force
consumers
pay
light
bulbs
detroit
edison
rather
someone
else
indication
one
light
bulb
fit
socket
well
another
sale
light
bulbs
way
crucial
respondent
successful
operation
conceivably
michigan
aim
extension
monopoly
born
preference
light
bulbs
supplied
one
whose
prices
already
regulated
ending
competition
market
accepted
adequate
state
objective
without
evidence
least
hint
record
competition
way
ineffective
appears
marketing
unlike
electric
power
production
natural
monopoly
implicate
health
safety
beset
problems
instability
flaws
competitive
market
take
means
says
electric
market
essentially
unregulated
understanding
agree
conclusion
conceivable
respondent
may
show
upon
evidence
sufficient
justification
scheme
certainly
done
yet
expressly
stated
schwegmann
fact
state
authorizes
price
fixing
course
give
immunity
scheme
absent
approval
congress
hen
state
compels
retailers
follow
parallel
price
policy
demands
private
conduct
sherman
act
forbids
argument
new
jersey
law
exempted
northern
securities
company
sherman
act
thoroughly
canvassed
plurality
opinion
rejected
reason
state
endow
corporations
combination
citizens
authority
restrain
interstate
international
commerce
disobey
national
manifested
legal
enactments
congress
passing
may
cast
least
sidelong
glance
related
area
federal
trade
regulation
patent
laws
although
federal
statute
explicit
point
sherman
act
see
et
clearly
state
laws
purport
either
expand
infringe
federal
patent
monopoly
see
lear
adkins
sears
roebuck
stiffel
compco
lighting
act
passed
reaction
holding
underwriters
business
insurance
commerce
within
meaning
sherman
act
congress
expressed
concern
application
act
greatly
impair
nullify
regulation
insurance
bringing
halt
experimentation
investigation
area
act
vigorously
endorsed
governors
insurance
commissioners
almost
justice
department
opposing
act
specifically
argued
parker
brown
made
legislation
unnecessary
immunized
insurance
business
insofar
regulated
congress
sure
parker
brown
dealt
state
commission
authorized
state
statute
enforce
program
conformity
supplementary
federal
statute
obviously
state
regulation
concerning
insurance
fall
category
approach
described
text
entirely
consistent
result
reached
parker
brown
wildly
fluctuating
agricultural
prices
prime
candidate
collective
scheme
interrupts
free
competition
order
bring
badly
needed
stability
state
close
supervision
case
parker
scheme
seems
entirely
reasonable
see
reason
disapprove
holding
parker
therefore
extent
plurality
stressing
identity
state
defendants
case
intimates
different
result
might
reached
raisin
growers
sued
agree
neither
agree
dissent
however
parker
must
taken
stand
broad
proposition
state
immunize
conduct
application
sherman
act
true
dissent
points
statements
arguably
effect
parker
opinion
hardly
unambiguous
point
also
observed
case
state
give
immunity
violate
sherman
act
authorizing
violate
declaring
action
lawful
moreover
must
choose
parker
categorical
statements
seemingly
contrary
statements
schwegmann
northern
securities
see
nn
supra
prefer
latter
keeping
actual
holdings
cases
justice
stevens
may
cases
state
participation
decision
adopt
challenged
restraint
dominant
unfair
hold
private
party
responsible
conduct
implementing
ante
agree
defense
based
fairness
may
available
however
rule
case
opinion
parties
like
far
addressed
question
whether
petitioner
suit
completely
barred
parker
brown
michigan
public
service
commission
approval
challenged
confine
present
decision
question
alone
leaving
consideration
fairness
defense
lower
courts
remand
making
two
observations
first
take
defense
based
fairness
defense
damages
recovery
injunctive
relief
latter
course
presents
danger
unfairness
moreover
justice
stevens
implies
emphasis
unfairly
holding
private
party
responsible
defense
rests
theory
challenged
restraint
legal
since
defendant
committed
voluntary
act
implementing
said
violated
law
true
acts
following
judgment
restraint
fact
illegal
state
law
extent
invalid
second
hope
consideration
given
remand
allowing
defense
damages
wherever
conduct
damages
based
required
state
law
rule
comport
theory
defendant
held
responsible
damages
conduct
choice
mean
rule
possible
grounds
rule
see
posner
proper
relationship
state
regulation
federal
antitrust
laws
rev
also
eliminate
seems
extremely
unfair
possibility
particular
period
regulatory
lag
regulatee
attempting
change
state
mandate
regulatee
required
state
law
conform
course
conduct
accumulating
liability
federal
law
justice
stewart
justice
powell
justice
rehnquist
join
dissenting
today
holds
public
utility
company
pervasively
regulated
state
utility
commission
may
held
liable
treble
damages
sherman
act
engaging
conduct
requirements
tariff
obligated
perform
respectfully
dissent
unprecedented
application
federal
antitrust
laws
surely
result
disruption
operation
every
public
utility
company
nation
creation
prospect
massive
treble
damage
liabilities
payable
ultimately
companies
customers
starting
point
analyzing
case
parker
brown
parker
create
exemption
federal
antitrust
laws
case
frequently
cited
proposition
sherman
act
intended
regulate
private
practices
prohibit
state
imposing
restraint
act
government
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
plurality
opinion
hold
case
decided
sovereign
state
ante
sued
sherman
act
view
parker
trivialize
case
point
overruling
flies
face
decisions
interpreted
applied
parker
state
action
doctrine
unsupported
sources
plurality
relies
sources
thought
except
rare
instances
analysis
positions
taken
parties
briefs
submitted
play
role
interpreting
written
opinions
contrary
rule
permit
plain
meaning
decisions
qualified
even
overridden
legislative
history
briefs
submitted
contending
parties
legislative
history
congressional
enactments
useful
discerning
legislative
intent
history
emanates
source
legislation
thus
directly
probative
intent
draftsmen
conflicting
views
presented
adversary
briefs
arguments
submitted
bear
analogous
relationship
final
product
assuming
arguendo
appropriate
look
behind
language
parker
brown
supra
think
apparent
plurality
distorted
positions
taken
state
california
amici
curiae
question
presented
reargument
parker
whether
state
statute
involved
rendered
invalid
action
congress
passing
sherman
act
ante
phrasing
indicates
precise
issue
sought
reargument
whether
california
statute
sherman
act
whether
sovereign
immune
suit
sherman
act
state
california
solicitor
general
certainly
understood
principal
issue
plurality
opinion
correctly
notes
supplemental
brief
filed
state
california
response
question
posed
advanced
three
basic
arguments
notes
decision
parker
rested
first
arguments
plurality
fails
acknowledge
california
first
argument
principal
part
straightforward
contention
sherman
act
intended
state
regulation
intrastate
commerce
respect
amicus
brief
plurality
opinion
solicitor
general
take
issue
appellants
first
argument
ante
indeed
plurality
says
solicitor
general
expressly
disclaimed
argument
state
california
officials
violated
federal
law
ibid
support
assertion
plurality
opinion
quotes
following
language
solicitor
general
brief
parker
question
face
whether
california
officials
violated
sherman
act
whether
state
program
interferes
accomplishment
objectives
federal
statute
ante
thus
clear
plurality
misread
positions
taken
state
california
solicitor
general
parker
brown
question
presented
parker
whether
restraint
trade
effected
california
statute
exempt
operation
sherman
act
question
addressed
solicitor
general
principal
part
state
california
question
resolved
holding
state
adopting
enforcing
prorate
program
made
contract
agreement
entered
conspiracy
restraint
trade
establish
monopoly
sovereign
imposed
restraint
act
government
sherman
act
undertake
prohibit
notion
parker
decided
action
taken
state
officials
pursuant
express
legislative
command
violate
sherman
act
ante
narrow
holding
avoided
question
applicability
antitrust
laws
private
action
taken
command
state
law
ante
thus
refuted
sources
plurality
opinion
relies
narrow
view
parker
decision
also
refuted
subsequent
cases
interpreted
applied
parker
doctrine
eastern
conf
noerr
motors
instance
held
violation
sherman
act
predicated
attempt
private
persons
influence
passage
enforcement
state
laws
regulating
competition
trucking
industry
took
starting
point
ruling
parker
brown
restraint
upon
trade
monopolization
result
valid
governmental
action
opposed
private
action
violation
act
made
viewed
equally
clear
sherman
act
prohibit
two
persons
associating
together
attempt
persuade
legislature
executive
take
particular
action
respect
law
produce
restraint
monopoly
ibid
contrary
ruling
held
substantially
impair
power
government
take
actions
legislature
executive
operate
restrain
trade
surely
rule
permitting
sherman
act
liability
arise
lobbying
private
parties
state
rules
restricting
competition
impair
power
state
governments
impose
restraints
fortiori
rule
permitting
sherman
act
liability
arise
private
parties
compliance
rules
impair
exercise
power
noerr
correctly
noted
latter
result
foreclosed
parker
holding
restraint
upon
trade
monopolization
result
valid
governmental
action
opposed
private
action
violation
act
made
litigation
testing
limits
exemption
focused
whether
alleged
anticompetitive
conduct
private
parties
indeed
result
state
action
thus
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
question
whether
price
fixing
practiced
respondents
required
state
acting
sovereign
parker
brown
held
exemption
protect
respondents
fairly
said
state
virginia
rules
required
anticompetitive
activities
either
respondent
respondents
arguments
constitute
contention
activities
complemented
objective
ethical
codes
view
state
action
sherman
act
purposes
enough
county
bar
puts
anticompetitive
conduct
prompted
state
action
rather
anticompetitive
activities
must
compelled
direction
state
acting
sovereign
plurality
view
parker
cover
private
conduct
flies
face
carefully
drafted
language
goldfarb
opinion
parker
noerr
goldfarb
point
unerringly
proper
disposition
case
regulatory
process
issue
three
principal
stages
first
utility
company
proposes
tariff
second
michigan
public
service
commission
investigates
proposed
tariff
either
approves
rejects
third
tariff
approved
utility
company
must
command
state
law
provide
service
accord
requirements
unless
commission
approves
modification
utility
company
thus
engages
two
distinct
activities
proposes
tariff
tariff
approved
obeys
terms
first
action
give
rise
antitrust
liability
noerr
second
compliance
terms
tariff
command
state
law
immune
antitrust
liability
parker
goldfarb
plurality
contrary
view
effectively
overrule
parker
entire
body
case
law
area
including
noerr
parker
holding
reduced
trivial
proposition
sherman
act
intended
run
directly
state
officials
governmental
entities
fashion
new
test
determining
whether
state
utility
regulation
creates
immunity
federal
antitrust
law
first
part
test
focus
whether
subjecting
utilities
antitrust
liability
unjust
second
part
test
look
whether
draftsmen
sherman
act
intended
superimpose
antitrust
standards
thus
exposure
treble
damages
conduct
compelled
state
regulatory
laws
chief
justice
accedes
new
test
least
state
purports
without
independent
regulatory
purpose
control
utility
activities
separate
competitive
markets
ante
new
immunity
test
thus
approval
majority
instances
anticompetitive
practices
deemed
ancillary
state
regulatory
goals
scarcely
backward
glance
noerr
case
concludes
utility
company
participation
decision
incorporate
program
tariff
sufficiently
significant
nothing
unjust
concluding
company
required
conform
conduct
federal
antitrust
law
like
comparable
conduct
unregulated
businesses
ante
attempt
distinguish
exemptive
force
mandatory
state
rules
adopted
behest
private
parties
adopted
pursuant
state
unilateral
decision
flatly
inconsistent
rationale
noerr
pointedly
rejected
construction
sherman
act
disqualify
people
taking
public
position
matters
financially
interested
construction
deprive
government
valuable
source
information
time
deprive
people
right
petition
instances
right
may
importance
today
holding
penalize
right
petition
may
well
strike
crippling
blow
state
utility
regulation
seems
acknowledge
regulation
heavily
dependent
active
participation
regulated
parties
typically
propose
tariffs
either
adopted
rejected
modified
utility
commissions
utility
escape
unpredictable
consequences
second
arm
new
test
see
infra
page
playing
possum
exercising
option
terminology
ante
surely
tempted
posing
serious
threat
efficient
effective
regulation
second
arm
new
immunity
test
apparently
comes
play
utility
activity
exceed
vaguely
defined
threshold
sufficient
freedom
choice
purports
aimed
answering
basic
question
whether
congress
intended
superimpose
antitrust
standards
conduct
already
regulated
state
utility
regulation
laws
ante
yet
analysis
opinion
reveals
three
factors
pays
heed
little
nothing
discerning
congressional
intent
rather
second
arm
new
test
simply
creates
vehicle
ad
hoc
judicial
determinations
substantive
validity
state
regulatory
goals
closely
resembles
discarded
doctrine
substantive
due
process
see
ferguson
skrupa
delineation
second
arm
new
test
proceeds
follows
apart
fairness
question
least
three
reasons
program
enjoy
sherman
act
immunity
ante
first
observes
merely
certain
conduct
may
subject
state
regulation
federal
antitrust
laws
necessarily
mean
must
satisfy
inconsistent
standards
ibid
true
enough
abstract
proposition
question
whether
utility
alleged
tie
sales
provision
electric
service
immune
antitrust
liability
assuming
constitute
antitrust
violation
absence
regulation
second
even
assuming
inconsistency
accept
view
federal
interest
must
inevitably
subordinated
state
ibid
goes
amplify
rationale
follows
mere
possibility
conflict
state
regulatory
policy
federal
antitrust
policy
insufficient
basis
implying
exemption
federal
antitrust
laws
congress
hardly
intended
state
regulatory
agencies
broader
power
federal
agencies
exempt
private
conduct
antitrust
laws
therefore
assuming
situations
existence
state
regulation
give
rise
implied
exemption
standards
ascertaining
existence
scope
exemption
surely
must
least
severe
applied
federal
regulatory
legislation
consistently
refused
find
regulation
gave
rise
implied
exemption
without
first
determining
exemption
necessary
order
make
regulatory
act
work
even
minimum
extent
necessary
application
standard
case
inexorably
requires
rejection
respondent
claim
ante
footnotes
omitted
closer
scrutiny
holding
reveals
reference
inapposite
implied
repeal
doctrine
simply
window
dressing
type
judicial
review
radically
different
engaged
gordon
new
york
stock
exchange
philadelphia
national
bank
cases
turned
exclusively
issues
statutory
construction
involved
judicial
scrutiny
abstract
necessity
centrality
particular
regulatory
provisions
instead
federal
regulatory
statute
accepted
given
federal
antitrust
law
interpretative
effort
aimed
accommodating
arguably
inconsistent
bodies
law
legislative
judgments
concerning
necessity
including
particular
provisions
regulatory
statute
approach
qualitatively
different
state
michigan
public
service
commission
decided
requiring
detroit
edison
provide
free
light
bulbs
term
condition
service
public
interest
yet
prepared
set
aside
policy
determination
program
means
imperative
continued
effective
functioning
michigan
regulation
utilities
industry
ante
emphasis
added
even
federal
antitrust
laws
construed
outlaw
respondent
program
reason
believe
michigan
regulation
electric
utilities
longer
able
function
effectively
regardless
outcome
case
michigan
interest
regulating
utilities
distribution
electricity
almost
entirely
unimpaired
ante
emphasis
added
emphasized
language
passages
shows
adopting
interpretation
sherman
act
allow
federal
judiciary
substitute
judgment
state
legislatures
administrative
agencies
respect
whether
particular
anticompetitive
regulatory
provisions
sufficiently
central
ante
judicial
conception
proper
scope
state
utility
regulation
content
purposes
suffer
promote
derives
presumably
mandate
sherman
act
assumption
plausible
becomes
apparent
second
reason
extending
sherman
act
cover
program
divested
inapposite
references
federal
implied
repeal
doctrine
merely
restatement
third
rationale
phrases
follows
inally
even
assume
congress
intend
antitrust
laws
apply
areas
economy
primarily
regulated
state
assumption
foreclose
enforcement
antitrust
laws
essentially
unregulated
area
market
electric
light
bulbs
ante
statement
raises
last
legitimate
question
whether
parker
erred
holding
congress
enacting
sherman
act
intend
vitiate
state
regulation
sort
issue
creating
exposure
activities
performed
compliance
therewith
rationale
appears
draftsmen
sherman
act
intended
exempt
utilities
treble
damages
extent
utilities
complying
state
rules
narrowly
reflect
typica
assum
ption
utility
natural
monopoly
regulate
utility
natural
monopoly
powers
opposed
business
activity
competitive
areas
economy
ante
footnotes
omitted
furthermore
regulation
must
sufficiently
central
regulation
natural
monopoly
powers
shield
regulated
party
antitrust
liability
ante
delphic
reading
sherman
act
unaided
reference
language
legislative
history
act
course
inconsistent
parker
brown
parker
involved
state
scheme
aimed
artificially
raising
market
price
raisins
raisin
production
natural
monopoly
limits
exemption
sherman
act
congruent
boundaries
natural
monopoly
power
parker
wrongly
decided
legislative
history
sherman
act
shows
conclusively
parker
correctly
decided
floor
debates
house
report
proposed
legislation
clearly
reveal
least
one
commentator
noted
congress
fully
understood
narrow
scope
given
commerce
clause
understanding
many
ways
historic
interest
subsequent
decisions
permitted
reach
sherman
act
expand
along
expanding
notions
congressional
power
narrow
view
taken
members
congress
remains
relevant
limited
purpose
assessing
intention
regarding
interaction
sherman
act
state
economic
regulation
legislative
history
reveals
clearly
congress
perception
limitations
power
commerce
clause
coupled
intent
intrude
upon
authority
several
regulate
domestic
commerce
house
report
stated
observed
provisions
bill
carefully
confined
subjects
legislation
clearly
within
legislative
authority
congress
attempt
made
invade
legislative
authority
several
even
occupy
doubtful
grounds
system
laws
devised
congress
alone
effectually
protect
people
evils
oppression
trusts
monopolies
congress
authority
deal
generally
subject
within
authority
legislate
respect
commerce
several
foreign
nations
follows
therefore
legislative
authority
congress
several
must
exerted
secure
suppression
restraints
upon
trade
monopolies
whatever
legislation
congress
may
enact
subject
within
limits
authority
prove
little
value
unless
shall
supplement
auxiliary
proper
legislation
may
within
legislative
authority
noteworthy
body
state
jurisprudence
formed
model
sherman
act
coexisted
state
laws
permitting
regulated
industries
operate
governmental
control
public
interest
indeed
state
regulatory
laws
long
antedated
passage
sherman
act
prior
passage
upheld
constitutional
attack
laws
integral
part
state
efforts
regulate
competition
congress
turned
guidance
barring
restraints
interstate
commerce
clear
laws
left
undisturbed
passage
sherman
act
congressional
spokesmen
expressly
stated
intent
interfere
state
laws
regulating
domestic
commerce
invade
legislative
authority
several
previously
noted
intent
draftsmen
sherman
act
intrude
sovereignty
coupled
full
precise
understanding
narrow
scope
congressional
power
commerce
clause
interpreted
decisions
subsequent
decisions
however
permitted
jurisdictional
reach
sherman
act
expand
along
expanding
view
commerce
power
congress
see
hospital
building
rex
hospital
trustees
cases
cited
therein
decisions
based
determination
congress
intended
exercise
power
possessed
enacted
sherman
act
effect
allowed
congress
retroactive
benefit
enlarged
judicial
conception
commerce
power
retroactive
expansion
jurisdictional
reach
sherman
act
large
part
responsible
advent
parker
doctrine
parker
involved
program
regulating
production
raisins
within
state
california
original
understanding
draftsmen
sherman
act
production
like
manufacturing
subject
regulatory
power
congress
commerce
clause
thus
within
jurisdictional
reach
sherman
act
see
knight
state
law
remained
static
parker
problem
rarely
ever
arisen
stated
northern
securities
operative
premise
act
prescribe
rule
interstate
international
commerce
domestic
commerce
relevant
question
whether
anticompetitive
conduct
required
permitted
state
statute
restraint
domestic
interstate
commerce
former
conduct
beyond
reach
sherman
act
latter
conduct
probably
violated
sherman
act
regardless
contrary
state
law
theory
state
mode
project
authority
across
continent
prevent
congress
exerting
power
possesses
constitution
interstate
international
commerce
exempt
corporation
engaged
interstate
commerce
obedience
rule
lawfully
established
congress
commerce
law
remain
static
one
commentator
put
parker
brown
decided
interpretation
scope
commerce
clause
changed
substantially
development
affection
doctrine
purely
intrastate
events
like
anticompetitive
arrangements
respect
agricultural
production
provision
utility
services
regulated
commerce
clause
events
requisite
impact
interstate
commerce
development
created
potential
serious
conflict
state
statutes
regulating
commerce
considered
domestic
viewed
falling
within
jurisdictional
reach
sherman
act
held
state
statutes
requiring
anticompetitive
arrangements
respect
commerce
sherman
act
effect
transformed
generous
principle
judicial
construction
namely
retroactive
expansion
jurisdictional
reach
sherman
act
limits
expanded
judicial
conception
commerce
power
transgression
clearly
expressed
congressional
intent
intrude
regulatory
authority
state
action
doctrine
parker
brown
clarified
goldfarb
represents
best
possible
accommodation
limiting
intent
judicial
expansion
jurisdictional
reach
sherman
act
parker
basic
holding
sherman
act
intend
displace
restraints
imposed
state
acting
sovereign
coincides
expressed
legislative
goal
invade
legislative
authority
several
goldfarb
clarified
parker
holding
private
conduct
come
within
exemption
must
merely
prompted
compelled
state
action
thus
refined
doctrine
performs
salutary
function
isolating
areas
state
regulation
state
sovereign
interest
state
judgment
strongest
limits
exemption
areas
beyond
go
without
disregarding
purpose
sherman
act
disrupt
state
regulatory
laws
congress
course
alter
original
intent
expand
contract
categories
state
law
may
permissibly
impose
restraints
competition
example
congress
passed
act
attached
proviso
sherman
act
permitting
resale
price
maintenance
contracts
contracts
permitted
applicable
state
law
proviso
interpreted
schwegmann
calvert
distillers
permit
state
enforce
law
providing
retailers
within
state
bound
resale
price
maintenance
contract
executed
one
retailer
state
today
notes
parker
legislative
judgment
embodied
version
sherman
act
standing
alone
seemed
immunize
state
scheme
ante
congress
thought
struck
new
balance
respect
specific
category
restraints
accordingly
schwegmann
determined
congressional
intent
concerning
permissible
limits
state
restraints
respect
resale
price
maintenance
reference
later
specific
expression
congressional
purpose
analogous
alteration
original
intent
regarding
area
state
regulation
issue
indeed
extent
subsequent
congressional
action
probative
shows
continuing
intent
defer
regulatory
authority
terms
conditions
electric
utility
service
thus
federal
power
act
provides
relevant
part
federal
regulation
extend
matters
subject
regulation
opinion
simply
ignores
clear
evidence
congressional
intent
substitutes
policy
judgment
desirability
disregarding
facet
state
economic
regulation
thinks
unwise
great
importance
adopting
freewheeling
approach
language
sherman
act
creates
statutory
simulacrum
substantive
due
process
doctrine
thought
put
rest
long
ago
see
ferguson
skrupa
approach
contemplates
selective
interdiction
anticompetitive
state
regulatory
measures
deemed
central
limited
range
regulatory
goals
considered
imperative
federal
judiciary
henceforth
public
utility
company
must
peril
successfully
divine
countless
interrelated
tariff
provisions
federal
ultimately
consider
central
imperative
guesses
wrong
may
subjected
treble
damages
penalty
compliance
state
law
posner
proper
relationship
state
regulation
federal
antitrust
laws
rev
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
progenitor
doctrine
olsen
smith
decision
relied
parker
support
proposition
state
acting
sovereign
imposes
restraint
commerce
restraint
violate
sherman
act
parker
brown
olsen
involved
challenge
validity
texas
law
fixing
charges
pilots
operating
port
galveston
prohibiting
duly
commissioned
pilots
engaging
pilotage
business
rejected
argument
texas
pilotage
statutes
repugnant
laws
congress
forbidding
combinations
restraint
trade
commerce
contention
commissioned
pilots
monopoly
business
combination
among
exclude
others
rendering
pilotage
services
also
denial
authority
state
regulate
since
state
power
regulate
appoint
commission
perform
pilotage
services
must
follow
monopoly
combination
legal
sense
arise
fact
duly
authorized
agents
state
alone
allowed
perform
duties
devolving
upon
law
propositions
referred
considered
ultimate
aspect
amount
simply
contention
texas
laws
void
want
power
unwise
analysis
laws
justified
conclusion
imply
case
remedy
congress
ultimate
authority
subject
vested
judicially
afforded
denying
power
state
exercise
authority
subject
concerning
plenary
power
congress
seen
fit
act
premises
parker
brown
supra
circumvented
simple
expedient
suing
private
party
state
anticompetitive
command
runs
holding
become
empty
formalism
standing
little
proposition
porter
brown
sued
wrong
parties
justice
blackmun
separate
opinion
today
sees
reason
disapprove
holding
parker
ante
proceeds
precisely
holding
parker
state
adopting
enforcing
prorate
program
imposed
restraint
act
government
sherman
act
undertake
prohibit
justice
blackmun
position
sherman
act
prohibit
restraints
satisfy
sherman
act
rule
reason
view
quite
different
holding
parker
fact
result
parker
reached
different
route
holding
instance
prorate
restraint
reasonable
within
meaning
sherman
act
impliedly
exempted
agricultural
marketing
agreement
act
simply
irrelevant
puzzled
justice
blackmun
willingness
emasculate
parker
indicated
continued
vitality
term
see
virginia
pharmacy
bd
virginia
consumer
council
seems
step
inconsistent
legislative
history
sherman
act
also
principles
stare
decisis
applicable
construction
federal
statutes
see
edelman
jordan
principles
preclude
reconsideration
antitrust
exemption
every
sense
aberration
anomaly
flood
kuhn
fortiori
preclude
exemption
coincides
clear
expression
congressional
intent
different
approach
course
called
interpreting
summary
dispositions
appeals
see
generally
hicks
miranda
port
authority
bondholders
protective
comm
port
new
york
authority
california
argument
began
statement
principle
federal
government
sister
sovereignties
supplemental
brief
appellants
parker
brown
legislating
within
respective
spheres
subject
federal
power
still
commerce
commerce
commerce
foreign
nations
among
several
incorporating
explicit
reference
preceding
argument
respect
whether
federal
agricultural
adjustment
act
california
statute
proceeding
premise
subject
matter
california
law
intrastate
commerce
within
jurisdiction
state
california
contended
never
held
congress
intends
supersede
suspend
exercise
police
powers
unless
purpose
effect
result
clearly
manifested
ibid
california
added
uch
intent
even
clear
express
serves
suspend
police
powers
subject
sovereignty
state
inhibition
penalties
congressional
action
plurality
position
today
seems
state
california
placed
particular
emphasis
fact
proscriptions
sherman
act
applicable
run
directly
state
california
argument
first
part
brief
simply
solely
congress
never
intended
subject
sovereign
state
provisions
sherman
act
ante
yet
preceding
quotations
show
california
argument
first
part
brief
dovetailed
two
interrelated
themes
first
state
regulation
intrastate
commerce
sherman
act
second
framers
sherman
act
intend
proscriptions
run
directly
sovereign
first
themes
california
deemed
primary
near
close
first
part
california
brief
appeared
following
passage
hold
state
within
prohibition
sherman
act
present
instance
result
prohibiting
exercising
otherwise
valid
police
powers
repeatedly
emphatically
stated
never
held
congress
intends
supersede
legislation
suspend
exercise
police
powers
state
even
may
unless
purpose
effect
result
clearly
manifested
supplemental
brief
appellants
parker
brown
omitted
distinction
properly
drawn
apparent
decisions
labor
law
context
state
political
subdivision
thereof
normally
subject
prohibitions
national
labor
relations
act
stat
amended
et
seq
see
nlrb
natural
gas
utility
certainly
follow
sovereign
enactments
state
may
deemed
federal
legislation
san
diego
unions
garmon
garner
teamsters
solicitor
general
began
analysis
following
statement
state
statute
permitting
requiring
dealers
commodity
combine
limit
supply
raise
price
subject
interstate
commerce
clearly
void
question
whether
state
may
undertake
control
supply
price
commodity
shipped
interstate
commerce
otherwise
restrain
interstate
competition
mandatory
regulation
brief
amicus
curiae
parker
brown
exception
attempt
influence
state
regulation
sham
aimed
harass
ing
deter
ring
competitors
free
unlimited
access
agencies
courts
california
motor
transport
trucking
unlimited
reliance
jackson
metropolitan
edison
misplaced
held
utility
discontinuance
service
customer
nonpayment
bills
state
action
sufficient
trigger
protections
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
petitioner
argued
state
public
utility
commission
approved
practice
part
respondent
general
tariff
termination
state
action
fourteenth
amendment
purposes
disagreed
holding
follows
nature
governmental
regulation
private
utilities
utility
may
frequently
required
state
regulatory
scheme
obtain
approval
practices
business
regulated
less
detail
free
institute
without
approval
regulatory
body
approval
state
utility
commission
request
regulated
utility
commission
put
weight
side
proposed
practice
ordering
transmute
practice
initiated
utility
approved
commission
state
action
commission
failure
overturn
practice
amounted
determination
pennsylvania
utility
authorized
employ
practice
desired
respondent
exercise
choice
allowed
state
law
initiative
comes
state
make
action
state
action
purposes
fourteenth
amendment
omitted
disagree
chief
justice
conclusion
michigan
policy
neutral
respect
whether
utility
program
see
infra
moreover
think
apparent
insistence
statutory
articulation
state
purpose
regulate
activities
performed
incident
provision
natural
monopoly
service
lead
serious
interference
state
regulation
see
ibid
noted
noerr
scheme
issue
parker
required
popular
initiative
noted
parker
expressly
rejected
argument
necessity
private
initiative
affected
program
validity
sherman
act
seems
indicate
one
point
improper
superimpose
antitrust
liability
state
regulatory
schemes
aimed
suppressing
competition
raising
prices
see
ante
unquestionably
examples
economic
regulation
purpose
government
control
avoid
consequences
unrestrained
competition
agricultural
marketing
programs
involved
parker
character
state
regulation
continues
aims
suppressing
competition
rather
duplicating
effects
competition
keeping
prices
respect
state
regulation
latter
type
state
scheme
afford
exemption
extent
regulated
party
engaged
business
activity
competitive
areas
economy
ante
omitted
rationale
bear
weight
compliance
state
program
aimed
suppressing
competition
nonmonopoly
industries
raisin
production
give
rise
sherman
act
liability
surely
compliance
state
program
aimed
controlling
terms
conditions
service
performed
incident
provision
natural
monopoly
product
give
rise
treble
damages
slater
antitrust
government
action
formula
narrowing
parker
brown
nw
rev
see
cong
rec
remarks
reagan
remarks
george
cong
rec
remarks
hiscock
remarks
reagan
remarks
stewart
remarks
hoar
remarks
george
hospital
building
rex
hospital
trustees
emphasis
added
cong
rec
cong
rec
emphasis
added
see
munn
illinois
police
powers
government
regulates
conduct
citizens
one
towards
another
manner
shall
use
property
regulation
becomes
necessary
public
good
exercise
customary
england
time
immemorial
country
first
colonization
regulate
ferries
common
carriers
hackmen
bakers
millers
wharfingers
innkeepers
fix
maximum
charge
made
services
rendered
accommodations
furnished
articles
sold
day
statutes
found
many
upon
subjects
think
never
yet
successfully
contended
legislation
came
within
constitutional
prohibitions
interference
private
property
frankfort
distilleries
underwriters
atlantic
cleaners
dyers
see
also
american
bldg
maint
industries
gulf
oil
copp
paving
see
hospital
building
rex
hospital
trustees
gulf
oil
copp
paving
supra
mandeville
island
farms
american
crystal
sugar
slater
supra
justice
blackmun
expresses
view
answered
question
result
expanding
ambit
sherman
act
bring
conflict
inconsistent
state
law
schwegmann
calvert
distillers
answer
gave
state
regulatory
statute
inconsistent
judicially
expanded
sherman
act
ante
opinion
schwegmann
purport
modify
overrule
parker
plausibly
read
resting
expression
congressional
intent
act
see
infra
even
assuming
however
schwegmann
conflicted
parker
surely
significant
aspect
conflict
congress
allow
persist
schwegmann
soon
legislatively
overruled
enactment
mcguire
bill
stat
one
point
omission
direct
reference
light
bulbs
statute
creating
michigan
public
service
commission
indicates
state
policy
neutral
question
whether
utility
program
ante
statement
seems
suggest
considers
specificity
state
legislature
deals
particular
regulatory
matters
relevant
determining
whether
agency
action
respecting
matters
represents
sovereign
choice
entitled
deference
sherman
act
suggestion
overlooks
fact
michigan
policy
far
neutral
announced
comp
laws
vest
expert
agency
complete
power
jurisdiction
regulate
public
utilities
state
agency
vested
power
jurisdiction
regulate
rates
fares
fees
charges
services
rules
conditions
service
matters
pertaining
formation
operation
direction
public
utilities
granted
power
jurisdiction
hear
pass
upon
matters
pertaining
necessary
incident
regulation
public
utilities
including
electric
light
power
companies
ibid
emphasis
added
state
legislature
ensure
antitrust
exemption
eschewing
broad
delegation
regulatory
authority
incorporating
regulatory
details
statutory
law
great
risk
state
prevented
regulating
effectively
repeatedly
observed
another
context
elegation
long
recognized
necessary
order
exertion
legislative
power
become
futility
effectiveness
legislative
administrative
processes
become
endangered
legislature
compulsion
filling
details
beyond
liberal
prescription
requiring
making
reasonable
rates
regulating
public
interest
burdens
minutiae
apt
clog
administration
law
deprive
agency
flexibility
dispatch
salient
virtues
sunshine
anthracite
coal
adkins
decision
schwegmann
rested
primarily
detailed
analysis
legislative
history
act
see
verkuil
state
action
due
process
antitrust
reflections
parker
brown
rev