hoover
ronwin
argued
january
decided
may
respondent
ronwin
hereafter
respondent
unsuccessful
candidate
admission
arizona
bar
pursuant
arizona
constitution
arizona
plenary
authority
determine
admissions
bar
arizona
rules
effect
committee
examinations
admissions
committee
appointed
authorized
examine
applicants
specified
subjects
rules
required
committee
submit
grading
formula
prior
giving
examination
grading
examination
committee
directed
submit
recommendations
admission
applicants
made
final
decision
grant
deny
admission
practice
rules
rejected
applicant
entitled
seek
individualized
review
committee
adverse
recommendation
filing
petition
arizona
denied
respondent
petition
review
ultimately
filed
action
federal
district
arizona
state
bar
members
committee
including
petitioners
others
respondent
alleged
petitioners
conspired
restrain
trade
violation
sherman
act
artificially
reducing
numbers
competing
attorneys
state
argued
committee
set
grading
scale
examination
reference
number
new
attorneys
thought
desirable
rather
reference
suitable
level
competence
petitioners
contended
immune
antitrust
liability
doctrine
parker
brown
district
dismissed
complaint
ground
inter
alia
failure
state
justiciable
claim
appeals
reversed
holding
although
petitioners
ultimately
might
able
show
entitled
immunity
district
decided
issue
motion
dismiss
held
district
properly
dismissed
complaint
failure
state
claim
relief
granted
pp
parker
state
legislature
adopts
legislation
actions
constitute
state
ipso
facto
exempt
operation
antitrust
laws
state
acting
legislative
capacity
occupies
position
state
legislature
purposes
doctrine
bates
state
bar
arizona
activity
issue
directly
legislature
carried
others
pursuant
state
authorization
must
showing
challenged
conduct
pursuant
clearly
articulated
state
policy
replace
competition
regulation
degree
state
legislature
supervises
representative
may
relevant
inquiry
however
challenged
conduct
fact
state
legislature
issues
clear
articulation
active
supervision
need
addressed
pp
case
actions
committee
regard
bar
examination
grading
formula
divorced
arizona
exercise
sovereign
powers
although
arizona
necessarily
delegated
administration
admissions
process
committee
rules
retained
sole
authority
determine
admitted
practice
law
arizona
thus
challenged
conduct
reality
arizona
therefore
exempt
sherman
act
liability
doctrine
cf
bates
state
bar
arizona
supra
pp
bates
distinguished
ground
arizona
petitioner
case
named
defendant
complaint
ground
parker
inapplicable
respondent
challenging
arizona
conduct
situation
existed
bates
bates
real
party
interest
arizona
case
law
well
state
rules
makes
clear
made
final
decision
applicant
allow
sherman
act
plaintiffs
look
behind
actions
state
sovereigns
base
claims
perceived
illegal
conspiracies
among
committees
commissions
others
necessarily
must
advise
sovereign
emasculate
parker
brown
doctrine
pp
powell
delivered
opinion
burger
brennan
marshall
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
white
blackmun
joined
post
rehnquist
took
part
decision
case
took
part
consideration
decision
case
charles
hoover
pro
se
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
jefferson
lankford
donn
kessler
philip
von
ammon
filed
brief
state
bar
arizona
et
al
respondents
rule
support
petitioners
respondent
edward
ronwin
argued
cause
filed
brief
pro
se
acting
solicitor
general
wallace
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
brief
assistant
attorney
general
baxter
john
garvey
barry
grossman
nancy
garrison
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
national
conference
bar
examiners
kurt
melchior
allan
ashman
jan
chilton
state
bar
california
henry
thumann
herbert
rosenthal
truitt
richey
robert
sweet
brief
amici
curiae
filed
state
colorado
et
al
stephen
sachs
attorney
general
maryland
charles
monk
ii
linda
jones
assistant
attorneys
general
duane
woodard
attorney
general
colorado
thomas
mcmahon
first
assistant
attorney
general
thomas
miller
attorney
general
iowa
john
perkins
assistant
attorney
general
robert
abrams
attorney
general
new
york
lloyd
constantine
assistant
attorney
general
william
leech
attorney
general
tennessee
william
haynes
deputy
attorney
general
jim
mattox
attorney
general
texas
david
richards
executive
assistant
attorney
general
bronson
la
follette
attorney
general
wisconsin
michael
zaleski
assistant
attorney
general
justice
powell
delivered
opinion
case
presents
question
whether
doctrine
immunity
actions
sherman
act
applies
grading
bar
examinations
committee
appointed
according
rules
arizona
respondent
ronwin
unsuccessful
candidate
admission
bar
arizona
petitioners
four
members
arizona
committee
examinations
admissions
committee
arizona
constitution
vests
authority
determine
admitted
practice
law
state
hunt
maricopa
county
employees
merit
system
see
also
rev
stat
ann
pursuant
authority
arizona
established
committee
examine
recommend
applicants
admission
arizona
bar
arizona
rules
adopted
effect
delegated
certain
responsibilities
committee
reserving
ultimate
authority
grant
deny
admission
rules
provided
committee
shall
examine
applicants
subjects
enumerated
rules
recommend
th
admission
practice
applicants
found
requisite
qualifications
rule
also
authorized
committee
utilize
grading
scoring
system
committee
deems
appropriate
discretion
use
bar
examination
rule
vii
amended
xxvii
xxxii
even
respect
grading
scoring
delegate
final
authority
committee
rules
directed
committee
file
formula
intended
use
grading
examination
days
prior
giving
examination
also
grading
examination
compiling
list
applicants
considered
qualified
practice
law
state
committee
directed
submit
recommendations
final
action
rule
rules
arizona
case
law
authority
admit
deny
admission
finally
rejected
applicant
entitled
seek
individualized
review
adverse
recommendation
committee
filing
petition
directly
rules
required
committee
file
response
petition
called
prompt
fair
decision
applicant
claims
arizona
ronwin
took
arizona
bar
examination
february
failed
pass
committee
recommended
arizona
deny
admission
bar
accepted
recommendation
ronwin
petitioned
review
manner
committee
conducted
graded
examination
particular
alleged
committee
failed
provide
model
answers
examination
failed
file
grading
formula
within
time
period
specified
rules
applied
draconian
process
used
grading
formula
measured
group
rather
individual
performance
failed
test
applicants
area
law
rules
required
testing
conducted
examination
atmosphere
alleged
committee
conduct
constituted
abuse
discretion
deprived
due
process
equal
protection
violated
sherman
act
denied
petition
two
subsequent
petitions
rehearing
ronwin
sought
review
arizona
action
denied
petition
certiorari
four
years
later
march
ronwin
filed
action
district
district
arizona
petitioners
named
defendants
suit
capacity
individual
members
committee
ronwin
renewed
complaint
petitioners
conspired
restrain
trade
violation
sherman
act
stat
artificially
reducing
numbers
competing
attorneys
state
arizona
gist
ronwin
argument
committee
petitioners
constituted
majority
set
grading
scale
february
examination
reference
number
new
attorneys
thought
desirable
rather
reference
suitable
level
competence
petitioners
moved
dismiss
complaint
federal
rule
civil
procedure
failure
state
claim
upon
relief
granted
federal
rule
civil
procedure
lack
jurisdiction
particular
petitioners
alleged
acting
committee
immune
antitrust
liability
parker
brown
petitioners
also
argued
ronwin
suffered
damage
conduct
complained
committee
conduct
affected
interstate
commerce
district
granted
petitioners
motion
finding
complaint
failed
state
justiciable
claim
jurisdiction
ronwin
lacked
standing
appeals
ninth
circuit
reversed
dismissal
complaint
ronwin
state
bar
arizona
appeals
read
district
ruling
ronwin
failed
state
claim
holding
bar
examination
grading
procedures
immune
federal
antitrust
laws
parker
brown
reasoned
although
petitioners
ultimately
might
able
show
entitled
immunity
district
decided
issue
rule
motion
see
stated
parker
progeny
mere
fact
petitioners
state
officials
appointed
arizona
insufficient
confer
immunity
relying
reading
several
recent
opinions
appeals
noted
petitioners
might
able
invoke
doctrine
reasoned
first
must
show
acting
pursuant
clearly
articulated
affirmatively
expressed
state
policy
therefore
dismissal
failure
state
claim
improper
also
held
ronwin
standing
bring
action
case
remanded
district
action
granted
certiorari
review
appeals
application
doctrine
reverse
ii
starting
point
analysis
involving
doctrine
reasoning
parker
brown
parker
considered
antitrust
implications
california
agriculture
prorate
act
state
statute
restricted
competition
among
food
producers
california
relying
principles
federalism
state
sovereignty
declined
construe
sherman
act
prohibiting
anticompetitive
actions
state
acting
legislature
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
years
since
decision
parker
occasion
several
cases
determine
scope
doctrine
never
departed
however
parker
basic
reasoning
applying
parker
doctrine
bates
state
bar
arizona
held
state
acting
legislative
capacity
occupies
position
state
legislature
therefore
decision
state
acting
legislatively
rather
judicially
exempt
sherman
act
liability
state
action
see
also
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
closer
analysis
required
activity
issue
directly
legislature
carried
others
pursuant
state
authorization
see
community
communications
boulder
municipal
regulation
cable
television
industry
california
retail
liquor
dealers
assn
midcal
aluminum
private
arrangement
authorized
state
new
motor
vehicle
board
california
orrin
fox
new
franchises
controlled
state
administrative
board
cases
becomes
important
ensure
anticompetitive
conduct
state
representative
contemplated
state
lafayette
louisiana
power
light
opinion
brennan
see
new
mexico
american
petrofina
replacing
entirely
free
competition
form
regulation
restraint
authorized
approved
state
rationale
parker
inapposite
result
cases
involving
anticompetitive
conduct
nonsovereign
state
representative
required
showing
conduct
pursuant
clearly
articulated
affirmatively
expressed
state
policy
replace
competition
regulation
boulder
supra
also
found
degree
state
legislature
supervises
representative
relevant
inquiry
see
midcal
aluminum
supra
goldfarb
supra
conduct
sovereign
hand
danger
unauthorized
restraint
trade
arise
conduct
issue
fact
state
legislature
need
address
issues
clear
articulation
active
supervision
pursuant
state
constitution
arizona
plenary
authority
determine
admissions
bar
therefore
first
critical
step
analysis
must
determine
whether
conduct
challenged
parker
doctrine
applies
ronwin
cause
action
sherman
act
iii
issue
arizona
plan
determining
admissions
bar
petitioners
use
thereunder
grading
formula
ronwin
alleged
petitioners
conspired
use
formula
restrain
competition
among
lawyers
argument
although
petitioners
qualified
state
officials
capacity
members
committee
acted
independently
arizona
result
argument
continues
committee
actions
representative
rather
therefore
entitled
immunity
agree
actions
committee
divorced
exercise
sovereign
powers
opinion
bates
state
bar
arizona
directly
pertinent
bates
two
attorneys
suspended
temporarily
practice
law
arizona
violating
disciplinary
rule
american
bar
association
aba
prohibited
lawyer
advertising
arizona
incorporated
aba
advertising
prohibition
local
rules
rules
also
provided
board
governors
arizona
state
bar
association
acting
recommendation
local
bar
disciplinary
committee
recommend
censure
suspension
member
bar
violating
advertising
ban
rules
board
governor
recommendation
automatically
become
effective
aggrieved
party
object
recommendation
within
days
party
objected
entitled
arizona
review
findings
recommendations
board
governors
local
committee
plaintiffs
challenged
rule
sherman
act
first
amendment
grounds
ultimately
concluded
aba
rule
violated
first
amendment
first
held
state
bar
association
immune
sherman
act
liability
enforcement
disciplinary
rules
state
action
reaching
conclusion
noted
although
state
bar
named
defendant
suit
suspended
attorneys
complaint
state
stated
appellants
claims
state
arizona
real
party
interest
adopted
rules
ultimate
trier
fact
law
enforcement
process
wilson
although
state
bar
plays
part
enforcement
rules
role
completely
defined
state
bar
acts
agent
continuous
supervision
logic
holding
bates
applies
greater
force
committee
actions
petitioners
members
official
body
selected
appointed
arizona
indeed
conceded
state
officers
gave
members
committee
discretion
compiling
grading
bar
examination
retained
strict
supervisory
powers
ultimate
full
authority
actions
rules
specified
subjects
tested
general
qualifications
required
applicants
bar
respect
specific
conduct
ronwin
complained
establishment
examination
grading
formula
rules
explicit
rule
vii
authorized
committee
determine
appropriate
grading
scoring
system
rule
vii
required
committee
submit
grading
formula
least
days
prior
examination
giving
grading
examination
committee
authority
limited
making
recommendations
made
final
decision
grant
deny
admission
practice
finally
rule
xii
provided
detailed
mandatory
review
procedure
aggrieved
candidate
challenge
committee
grading
formula
light
provisions
holding
reasoning
bates
conclude
although
arizona
necessarily
delegated
administration
admissions
process
committee
approved
particular
grading
formula
retained
sole
authority
determine
admitted
practice
law
arizona
thus
conduct
ronwin
challenges
reality
arizona
see
bates
therefore
exempt
sherman
act
liability
doctrine
parker
brown
oral
argument
ronwin
suggested
attribute
arizona
intent
approve
anticompetitive
activity
petitioners
absence
proof
aware
petitioners
devised
grading
formula
purpose
limit
number
lawyers
state
argument
misconceives
basis
doctrine
reason
state
action
immune
sherman
act
liability
state
chosen
act
anticompetitive
fashion
state
chosen
act
suggestion
purpose
restrain
state
action
sherman
act
legislative
history
parker
suggest
parker
suggested
since
state
action
exempt
antitrust
liability
sovereign
acted
wisely
full
disclosure
subordinate
officers
requirement
action
state
acting
sovereign
bates
supra
action
issue
whether
anticompetitive
clearly
arizona
iv
dissenting
opinion
justice
stevens
adopted
alter
dramatically
doctrine
immunity
therefore
reply
directly
dissent
concedes
must
arizona
exercises
sovereign
power
respect
admission
arizona
bar
challenged
conduct
immune
parker
post
also
conceded
members
committee
examinations
admissions
petitioners
state
officers
concessions
compelled
decision
bates
think
dispose
ronwin
contentions
effort
distinguish
bates
dissent
notes
arizona
petitioner
case
named
defendant
respondent
complaint
respondent
challenging
conduct
arizona
parker
brown
simply
inapplicable
post
dissent
fails
recognize
precisely
situation
existed
bates
case
arizona
party
named
defendant
complaining
lawyers
yet
unanimous
opinion
concluded
claims
appellants
bates
state
arizona
real
party
interest
adopted
rules
ultimate
trier
fact
law
enforcement
process
bates
state
bar
arizona
supra
see
supra
core
argument
dissent
ronwin
challenged
action
committee
arizona
claim
directed
committee
artificially
reduce
number
lawyers
arizona
therefore
committee
assert
sovereign
antitrust
immunity
post
emphasis
original
dissent
acknowledge
conspire
might
committee
reduce
number
lawyers
arizona
arizona
authority
grant
deny
admission
practice
state
bates
arizona
real
party
interest
dissent
largely
ignores
rules
arizona
summary
commands
suggests
dissent
apparently
prefers
address
arizona
established
committee
sole
purpose
examining
recommending
applicants
admission
bar
rule
rules
provided
examination
admission
applicants
shall
conform
rule
committee
shall
examine
applicants
recommend
qualified
applicants
two
examinations
held
year
ibid
rule
vi
amended
xxxii
emphasis
added
rules
also
specified
subjects
tested
required
committee
submit
grading
formula
advance
examination
rule
vii
amended
xxxii
safeguard
disappointed
applicant
accorded
right
seek
individualized
review
filing
petition
directly
ronwin
unsuccessfully
pursuant
rule
xii
ronwin
filed
complaint
contained
plethora
charges
including
substance
complaint
case
denied
petition
well
two
petitions
rehearing
see
supra
thus
state
action
explicitly
rejecting
ronwin
claim
finally
case
law
well
rules
makes
clear
arizona
made
final
decision
applicant
see
supra
unlike
actions
virginia
state
bar
goldfarb
actions
committee
governed
rules
rules
carefully
reserve
authority
make
decision
admit
deny
decision
critical
state
action
see
bates
page
opinion
therefore
also
wholly
consistent
reasoning
lafayette
louisiana
power
light
community
communications
boulder
holding
derived
directly
reasoning
parker
bates
cases
unmistakably
hold
action
complained
failure
admit
ronwin
bar
state
action
exempt
antitrust
liability
regardless
state
motives
taking
action
application
standard
facts
case
requires
reverse
judgment
appeals
reasoning
adopted
dissent
allow
sherman
act
plaintiffs
look
behind
actions
state
sovereigns
base
claims
perceived
conspiracies
restrain
trade
among
committees
commissions
others
necessarily
must
advise
sovereign
holding
emasculate
parker
brown
doctrine
example
state
legislature
enacted
law
based
studies
performed
advice
given
advisory
committee
dissent
find
state
exempt
sherman
act
liability
committee
party
dissatisfied
new
law
circumvent
doctrine
alleging
committee
advice
reflected
undisclosed
collective
desire
restrain
trade
without
knowledge
legislature
plaintiff
certainly
survive
motion
dismiss
even
summary
judgment
despite
fact
suit
falls
squarely
within
class
cases
found
exempt
sherman
act
liability
parker
summary
case
turns
narrow
specific
issue
denied
ronwin
admission
arizona
bar
dissent
argues
effect
since
order
record
denial
must
action
committee
argument
ignores
incontrovertible
fact
law
arizona
state
authority
admit
deny
admission
practice
law
function
committee
grant
deny
admission
bar
power
rests
solely
application
burke
see
supra
conclude
district
properly
dismissed
ronwin
complaint
failure
state
claim
upon
relief
granted
therefore
judgment
appeals
reversed
footnotes
procedure
arizona
unique
state
recent
years
burgeoning
number
candidates
admission
practice
law
increased
complexity
subjects
must
tested
combined
make
grading
administration
bar
examinations
burdensome
task
result
although
highest
state
retains
ultimate
authority
granting
denying
admission
bar
courts
delegated
subordinate
committee
responsibility
preparing
grading
administering
examination
see
klein
leleiko
mavity
bar
admission
rules
student
practice
rules
parties
disagree
wording
rules
time
ronwin
took
bar
examination
disagreement
centers
around
effective
date
amendments
promulgated
petitioners
contend
amendments
took
effect
ronwin
took
february
bar
examination
ronwin
submits
became
effective
march
ronwin
concedes
order
amending
rules
provided
amendments
become
effective
january
notwithstanding
directive
argues
rev
stat
ann
provided
amendments
rules
may
become
effective
days
publication
distribution
since
released
amendments
january
ronwin
submits
earliest
possible
effective
date
march
ronwin
misread
section
applied
rules
regulated
pleading
practice
procedure
judicial
proceedings
state
courts
terms
statute
limit
jurisdiction
arizona
establish
terms
admission
practice
law
state
see
rev
stat
ann
rule
provided
examination
admission
examination
admission
applicants
membership
state
bar
arizona
shall
conform
rule
purpose
committee
examinations
admissions
consisting
seven
active
members
state
bar
shall
appointed
committee
shall
examine
applicants
recommend
admission
practice
applicants
found
committee
necessary
qualifications
fulfill
requirements
prescribed
rules
board
governors
approved
respecting
examinations
admissions
consider
recommendations
either
grant
deny
admission
according
ronwin
complaint
committee
announced
february
examination
passing
grade
test
assigned
grades
using
scaled
scoring
system
system
examinations
graded
first
without
reference
grading
scale
thus
examination
assigned
raw
score
based
number
correct
answers
committee
converted
raw
score
score
scale
zero
establishing
raw
score
deemed
equivalent
seventy
see
infra
rule
vii
provided
committee
examinations
admissions
file
thirty
days
examination
formula
upon
bar
examination
results
applied
portions
total
examination
results
addition
committee
file
thirty
days
examination
proposed
formula
grading
entire
examination
xxxii
see
supra
application
courtney
may
exercise
inherent
powers
admit
practice
law
without
favorable
action
committee
hackin
lockwood
find
power
grant
deny
admission
vested
solely
arizona
cert
denied
see
also
application
burke
rule
xii
provided
applicant
aggrieved
decision
committee
refusing
permission
take
examination
upon
record
refusing
permission
take
examination
hearing
substantial
cause
respect
claimed
failure
award
satisfactory
grade
upon
examination
may
within
days
occurrence
file
verified
petition
review
copy
said
petition
shall
promptly
served
upon
chairman
member
committee
committee
shall
within
days
service
transmit
said
applicant
file
response
petition
fully
advising
committee
reasons
decision
admitting
contesting
assertions
made
applicant
said
petition
thereupon
shall
consider
papers
filed
together
petition
response
make
order
hold
hearings
give
directions
may
discretion
deem
best
adapted
prompt
fair
decision
rights
obligations
applicant
judged
light
committee
obligation
public
see
qualified
applicants
admitted
practice
attorneys
law
arizona
rules
instructed
committee
give
two
examinations
year
one
july
one
february
xxxii
also
alleged
committee
violated
constitutional
rights
refusing
grades
released
provide
questions
answers
portion
examination
rule
xii
provides
respect
petition
aggrieved
applicant
arizona
shall
consider
petition
response
hold
hearings
give
directions
may
discretion
deem
best
adapted
prompt
fair
decision
xxxvi
ronwin
makes
claim
failed
comply
rules
although
course
disagrees
judgment
denying
petition
thus
denial
petition
must
construed
consideration
rejection
arguments
made
petition
including
ronwin
claim
sherman
act
violated
also
named
defendants
petitioners
spouses
arizona
state
bar
district
dismissed
suit
defendants
appeals
affirmed
dismissal
ronwin
state
bar
arizona
ronwin
challenged
aspect
appeals
opinion
conditional
certiorari
denied
ronwin
hoover
averment
sherman
act
violation
ronwin
complaint
follows
aforesaid
conduct
scoring
system
formula
see
supra
defendants
entered
conspiracy
combination
intended
result
restraint
trade
commerce
among
several
artificially
reducing
numbers
competing
attorneys
state
arizona
consequence
said
conduct
plaintiff
among
artificially
prevented
entering
competition
attorney
state
arizona
thereby
deprived
right
compete
attorney
legal
business
deriving
involving
several
including
arizona
app
district
also
denied
ronwin
motion
requesting
trial
judge
recuse
appeals
held
district
abused
discretion
denying
motion
declined
review
finding
ronwin
hoover
supra
community
communications
boulder
california
retail
liquor
dealers
assn
midcal
aluminum
new
motor
vehicle
board
california
orrin
fox
lafayette
louisiana
power
light
appeals
also
held
district
give
ronwin
opportunity
show
petitioners
actions
sufficiently
affected
interstate
commerce
fall
within
jurisdiction
sherman
act
petitioners
seek
review
holding
case
present
issue
whether
governor
state
stands
position
state
legislature
purposes
doctrine
ronwin
dispute
regulation
bar
sovereign
function
arizona
bates
state
bar
arizona
noted
regulation
activities
bar
core
state
power
protect
public
likewise
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
stated
interest
regulating
lawyers
especially
great
since
lawyers
essential
primary
governmental
function
administering
justice
historically
officers
courts
see
also
griffiths
professions
close
core
state
power
protect
public
trade
profession
essential
primary
governmental
function
administering
justice
ronwin
complaint
see
supra
focuses
grading
formula
means
used
restrain
competition
describes
follows
defendants
grade
zero
one
hundred
scale
rather
used
raw
score
system
raw
scores
known
defendants
picked
particular
raw
score
value
equal
passing
grade
seventy
thereby
number
bar
applicants
receive
passing
grade
depended
upon
exact
raw
score
value
chosen
equal
seventy
rather
achievement
bar
applicant
standard
app
addition
raw
scores
number
correct
answers
ets
reports
scaled
score
applicant
series
tests
mbe
intended
measure
levels
competence
important
standardized
score
represents
level
competence
test
test
raw
score
dependable
purpose
since
level
difficulty
varies
test
test
possible
draft
two
tests
exactly
level
difficulty
scaled
scores
obtained
reusing
questions
earlier
tests
standardized
statistical
analysis
scores
reused
questions
determines
many
points
added
subtracted
raw
score
provide
applicant
scaled
score
thus
particular
scaled
score
represents
level
competence
examination
examination
although
appeals
recognized
similarity
case
bates
found
facts
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
supra
analogous
reliance
goldfarb
misplaced
dissent
judge
ferguson
noted
goldfarb
involved
procedures
approved
state
state
legislature
contrast
petitioners
performed
functions
required
rules
effective
unless
approved
rule
arizona
provided
duties
obligations
members
bar
shall
prescribed
code
professional
responsibility
american
bar
association
following
petitioners
request
rehearing
appeals
parties
debated
whether
extent
committee
complied
rule
purposes
determining
application
doctrine
sufficient
rules
contained
enforceable
provision
calling
submission
grading
formula
moreover
rules
contained
review
procedure
allowed
aggrieved
applicant
bring
attention
failure
committee
comply
filing
requirements
rule
vii
record
reveals
ronwin
fact
alleged
petition
review
arizona
committee
filed
grading
formula
within
time
provided
rule
rejected
petition
see
supra
procedure
allowed
disappointed
applicant
challenge
substantial
cause
committee
decision
claimed
failure
award
satisfactory
grade
rule
xii
noted
ronwin
took
full
advantage
rule
xii
challenge
action
committee
see
supra
however
challenge
particular
grade
assigned
answers
solicitor
general
behalf
amicus
contends
recent
opinion
community
communications
boulder
precludes
finding
committee
action
attributable
arizona
contrary
solicitor
general
suggestion
reasoning
boulder
supports
conclusion
reach
today
boulder
reiterated
analysis
justice
brennan
opinion
lafayette
louisiana
power
light
noted
doctrine
grounded
concepts
federalism
state
sovereignty
stated
parker
confer
immunity
automatically
municipalities
actions
municipality
state
holding
boulder
municipalities
may
eligible
immunity
extent
ac
pursuant
clearly
articulated
affirmatively
expressed
state
policy
see
also
lafayette
supra
opinion
brennan
consistent
reasoning
boulder
decision
today
rests
conclusion
conduct
ronwin
complains
clearly
action
state
bates
explicit
authority
conclusion
holding
petitioners
conduct
exempt
liability
sherman
act
precludes
need
address
petitioners
contention
immune
liability
doctrine
see
mine
workers
pennington
eastern
railroad
presidents
conference
noerr
motor
freight
also
address
ronwin
contention
arizona
method
limiting
bar
admissions
violates
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
ronwin
concedes
made
argument
first
time
response
petitioners
motion
rehearing
appeals
failure
raise
issue
timely
manner
precludes
consideration
authority
arizona
determine
shall
admitted
bar
procedure
even
clearly
defined
role
bates
case
state
bar
committee
members
appointed
expressly
accept
reject
committee
actions
arizona
law
responsibility
admit
deny
admission
practice
law
certainly
assume
arizona
exercise
specifically
reserved
power
rules
invariably
agrees
committee
even
however
action
sovereign
even
committee
members
decided
grade
strictly
grading
formula
approved
purpose
reducing
total
number
lawyers
admitted
practice
knew
approved
number
applicants
definitive
action
nothing
doctrine
antitrust
law
permits
us
question
motives
sovereign
action
dissent
recites
provisions
rules
regulating
composition
origin
committee
notes
rules
require
committee
recommend
qualified
applicants
post
dissent
mention
however
several
critical
provisions
summarized
text
infra
articulate
arizona
intent
retain
full
authority
responsibility
bar
admissions
process
dissent
post
advanced
theory
relevant
state
action
state
denial
ronwin
postexamination
petitions
filed
emphasis
supplied
dissent
inaccurate
holding
based
direct
participation
every
stage
admissions
process
including
retention
sole
authority
admit
deny
critical
action
case
decision
deny
ronwin
admission
bar
dissent
suggestion
arizona
never
made
decision
simply
ignores
arizona
law
arizona
stated
several
occasions
committee
makes
decision
admit
deny
admission
applicants
application
burke
stated
function
committee
grant
deny
admission
bar
power
rests
solely
committee
bounden
duty
put
red
flag
applicants
substantial
doubt
doubt
exists
recommendation
withheld
applicant
may
feel
questions
raised
character
qualifications
without
substance
case
may
apply
directly
admission
final
analysis
judicial
function
duty
resolving
questions
one
way
emphasis
supplied
committee
fails
recommend
admission
applicant
may
challenge
committee
conclusions
original
application
direct
committee
show
cause
applicant
refused
favorable
recommendation
applicant
petition
committee
response
using
independent
judgment
de
novo
determine
whether
necessary
qualifications
shown
thus
arizona
repeatedly
affirmed
responsibility
final
decisionmaker
admissions
bar
dissent
relying
absence
record
us
specific
order
time
ronwin
admitted
nevertheless
us
hold
committee
rather
made
final
decisions
admissions
denials
applicants
took
examination
february
dissent
correct
valid
action
respect
took
examination
since
arizona
law
committee
independent
power
act
ronwin
complaint
makes
extreme
averment
certainly
assume
arizona
failed
discharge
responsibility
moreover
noted
supra
ronwin
claims
specifically
rejected
true
course
framing
examination
questions
particularly
grading
examinations
involved
exercise
judgment
discretion
examiners
discretion
necessarily
delegated
arizona
committee
must
unless
state
courts
undertake
grading
rules
arizona
gave
affirmative
directions
committee
respect
every
nondiscretionary
function
reserving
ultimate
authority
control
number
lawyers
admitted
arizona
bar
ronwin
avers
conspiracy
limit
number
applicants
admitted
makes
claim
animus
discriminatory
intent
respect
ronwin
apparently
us
believe
grading
examinations
exact
science
separates
qualified
unqualified
applicants
ideally
perhaps
true
law
schools
bar
examining
committees
must
identify
grade
students
applicants
fail
pass
setting
passing
grade
adoption
grading
formula
eliminate
except
multiple
choice
exams
discretion
exercised
grader
nature
therefore
grading
examinations
necessarily
separate
competent
incompetent
except
roughly
identify
qualified
practice
law
qualified
best
bar
examination
identify
applicants
qualified
practice
law
less
qualified
justice
stevens
dissent
ny
possible
claim
challenged
conduct
state
squarely
foreclosed
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
post
issue
goldfarb
sherman
act
challenge
schedules
maintained
fairfax
county
bar
association
enforced
virginia
state
bar
goldfarb
state
law
refer
lawyers
fees
virginia
rules
direct
state
bar
supply
fee
schedules
approve
fee
schedules
established
state
bar
contrary
directed
lawyers
controlled
fee
schedules
thus
even
though
state
bar
state
agency
concluded
fairly
said
state
virginia
rules
required
anticompetitive
activities
either
respondent
evident
provisions
arizona
rules
case
arises
totally
different
circumstances
although
relevant
legal
principles
dissent
reliance
goldfarb
simply
misreads
decision
case
dissent
relies
boulder
arguing
clearly
articulated
affirmatively
expressed
state
policy
exist
case
post
dissent
overlooks
boulder
careful
say
action
exempt
antitrust
scrutiny
unless
constitutes
action
state
colorado
sovereign
capacity
see
parker
unless
constitutes
municipal
action
furtherance
implementation
clearly
articulated
affirmatively
expressed
state
policy
see
city
lafayette
thus
unlike
dissent
justice
brennan
boulder
careful
distinguish
action
sovereign
action
taken
subordinate
body
dissent
also
cites
cantor
detroit
edison
california
retail
liquor
dealers
assn
midcal
aluminum
presenting
situations
analogous
action
arizona
argument
overlooks
fundamental
difference
case
several
cases
cited
respondent
cases
necessary
determine
whether
clearly
articulated
affirmatively
expressed
state
policy
challenged
conduct
state
acting
sovereign
noted
arizona
acting
sovereign
capacity
made
final
decision
deny
admission
ronwin
see
supra
amicus
curiae
brief
national
conference
bar
examiners
points
many
bar
admission
processes
like
issue
case
see
brief
national
conference
bar
examiners
amicus
curiae
typically
state
ultimate
decisionmaker
committee
board
conducts
examinations
pursuant
rules
customary
lawyers
recognized
standing
integrity
serve
bodies
usually
public
duty
little
compensation
see
duhl
bar
examiner
handbook
ed
virtually
significant
percentage
take
bar
examination
fail
pass
see
bar
examination
statistics
bar
examiner
thus
every
year
thousands
aspirants
like
ronwin
disappointed
example
year
ronwin
first
took
arizona
bar
examination
applicants
took
bar
examinations
nationwide
failed
pass
bar
examiner
national
conference
bar
examiners
amicus
brief
cautions
affirmance
appeals
case
well
invite
numerous
suits
answer
say
course
suits
likely
frivolous
ronwin
failed
bar
litigating
claim
decade
basis
complaint
basically
challenges
motive
arizona
committee
claim
grading
formula
devised
purpose
limiting
competition
allegation
sufficient
survive
motion
dismiss
examining
boards
committees
bear
substantial
discovery
litigation
burdens
attendant
particularly
upon
refuting
charge
improper
motive
see
areeda
antitrust
immunity
state
action
lafayette
harv
rev
moreover
ronwin
brought
suit
damages
sherman
act
threat
treble
damages
question
threat
sued
damages
particularly
issue
turns
subjective
intent
motive
deter
able
citizens
performing
essential
public
service
see
harlow
fitzgerald
view
action
challenged
ronwin
state
motive
committee
recommendations
immaterial
nevertheless
think
particularly
view
decision
consequences
affirmance
understood
consequences
reversal
today
limited
effect
attention
drawn
trade
profession
licensing
members
determined
directly
sovereign
state
justice
stevens
justice
white
justice
blackmun
join
dissenting
london
bakers
guild
regulated
economics
craft
quality
product
year
adjudged
one
richard
de
lughteburghe
punishment
hurdle
sold
certain
loaves
bread
london
bread
baked
suthwerke
rather
london
loaves
proper
weight
thus
richard
violated
guild
restriction
designed
protect
economic
interests
local
bakers
well
restriction
designed
protect
public
purchase
inferior
products
centuries
common
law
restraint
trade
concerned
restrictions
entry
particular
professions
occupations
case
suthwerke
baker
illustrates
restrictions
imposed
medieval
english
guilds
served
two
important
quite
different
purposes
guilds
limited
number
persons
might
engage
particular
craft
order
sure
enough
work
available
enable
guild
members
earn
adequate
livelihood
also
protected
public
ensuring
apprentices
journeymen
master
craftsmen
skills
required
work
numerous
occupations
today
licensing
requirements
may
serve
either
broad
purposes
medieval
guild
restrictions
risk
private
regulation
market
entry
prices
output
may
designed
confer
monopoly
profits
members
industry
expense
consuming
public
central
concern
development
common
law
restraint
trade
antitrust
jurisprudence
time
risk
free
market
may
adequately
protect
public
purveyors
inferior
goods
services
provided
legitimate
justification
public
regulation
entry
wide
variety
occupations
private
regulation
generally
proscribed
antitrust
laws
public
regulation
generally
consistent
antitrust
policy
potential
conflict
arises
however
whenever
government
delegates
licensing
power
private
parties
whose
economic
interests
may
served
limiting
number
competitors
may
engage
particular
trade
fact
private
parties
used
licensing
advance
interests
restraining
competition
expense
public
interest
see
generally
gellhorn
abuse
occupational
licensing
chi
rev
potential
conflict
antitrust
laws
may
avoided
either
two
ways
state
may
formulate
governing
standards
administer
procedures
determine
whether
particular
applicants
qualified
state
governs
entry
profession
evils
associated
giving
power
market
stand
benefit
inhibiting
entry
market
absent
reason
state
action
kind
even
specifically
designed
control
output
regulate
prices
violate
antitrust
laws
parker
brown
alternatively
state
may
delegate
private
parties
authority
formulate
standards
determine
qualifications
particular
applicants
authority
delegated
stake
competitive
conditions
within
market
risk
public
power
exercised
private
benefit
minimize
risk
state
policies
displacing
competition
must
clearly
affirmatively
expressed
must
appropriately
supervised
see
community
communications
boulder
california
retail
liquor
dealers
assn
midcal
aluminum
case
respondent
unable
obtain
license
practice
law
arizona
alleges
doubts
competence
lawyer
petitioners
engaged
anticompetitive
conspiracy
used
arizona
bar
examination
artificially
limit
number
persons
permitted
practice
law
state
petitioners
claim
alleged
conspiracy
actionable
sherman
act
represents
decision
state
petitioners
identify
state
body
decided
public
interest
limit
entry
even
fully
qualified
persons
arizona
bar
indeed
conspiracy
alleged
product
regulatory
scheme
evidence
criterion
except
competence
adopted
arizona
basis
granting
licenses
practice
law
conspiracy
respondent
alleged
private
market
participants
allegedly
attempting
protect
competitive
position
misuse
powers
yet
holds
conspiracy
cloaked
state
immunity
antitrust
laws
judgment
competitive
ideal
sherman
act
may
easily
escaped
petitioners
members
arizona
committee
examinations
admissions
arizona
established
committee
recommend
applicants
admission
arizona
bar
consists
seven
members
state
bar
selected
list
nominees
supplied
arizona
state
bar
association
board
governors
petitioners
administered
bar
examination
respondent
took
failed
complaint
respondent
alleged
scores
candidate
known
petitioners
selected
particular
score
equal
passing
grade
complaint
alleges
petitioners
adjust
grading
formula
order
limit
number
persons
enter
market
compete
members
arizona
bar
manner
respondent
artificially
prevented
entering
competition
attorney
state
arizona
arizona
instructed
petitioners
recommend
admission
bar
applicants
receive
passing
grade
general
examination
found
otherwise
qualified
indication
criterion
competence
appropriate
rules
regulating
admission
bar
indeed
respect
respondent
application
admission
arizona
wrote
practice
law
privilege
right
conditioned
solely
upon
requirement
person
necessary
mental
physical
moral
qualifications
application
ronwin
cert
denied
short
one
looks
vain
arizona
law
petitioners
briefs
pronouncements
arizona
articulation
policy
beside
admitting
competent
attorneys
practice
arizona
thus
respondent
challenge
state
policy
contests
neither
decision
license
wish
practice
law
decision
require
certain
level
competence
measured
bar
examination
precondition
licensing
instead
challenges
alleged
decision
exclude
even
competent
attorneys
practice
arizona
order
protect
interests
arizona
bar
often
reiterated
cases
involve
sufficiency
pleading
federal
may
dismiss
complaint
failure
state
claim
unless
appears
beyond
doubt
even
complaint
liberally
construed
plaintiff
prove
set
facts
entitle
relief
allegations
complaint
must
taken
true
purposes
decision
pleadings
judge
reading
complaint
kind
understandably
somewhat
skeptical
seems
highly
improbable
members
profession
entrusted
state
public
obligation
administer
examination
system
measure
applicants
competence
betray
trust
secretly
subvert
system
serve
private
ends
nevertheless
probability
respondent
prevail
trial
justification
dismissing
complaint
indeed
may
appear
face
pleadings
recovery
remote
unlikely
test
scheuer
rhodes
purport
justify
dismissal
complaint
reference
low
probability
respondent
prevail
trial
instead
substantially
broadens
doctrine
antitrust
immunity
using
elephant
gun
kill
flea
ii
respondent
challenging
restraint
trade
imposed
sovereign
case
governed
parker
brown
held
sherman
act
apply
sovereign
acts
see
points
arizona
exercises
sovereign
power
respect
admission
arizona
bar
hence
challenged
conduct
immune
parker
ante
majority
conclusion
challenged
action
arizona
however
plainly
wrong
respondent
alleged
decision
place
artificial
limit
number
lawyers
made
petitioners
state
contention
petitioners
made
decision
direction
behest
petitioner
named
defendant
respondent
complaint
unlike
petitioners
suggested
arizona
played
part
establishing
grading
standards
bar
examination
made
independent
decision
admit
reject
individual
applicant
admission
bar
respondent
challenging
conduct
arizona
parker
simply
inapplicable
possible
claim
challenged
conduct
state
squarely
foreclosed
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
antitrust
action
brought
challenging
schedules
published
county
bar
association
enforced
state
bar
pursuant
mandate
virginia
regulate
practice
law
state
acknowledging
state
bar
state
agency
enforced
schedules
pursuant
authority
granted
state
stated
simple
test
antitrust
immunity
threshold
inquiry
determining
anticompetitive
activity
state
action
type
sherman
act
meant
proscribe
whether
activity
required
state
acting
sovereign
need
inquire
question
fairly
said
state
virginia
rules
required
anticompetitive
activities
either
respondent
respondents
pointed
virginia
statute
requiring
activities
state
law
simply
refer
fees
leaving
regulation
profession
virginia
although
ethical
codes
mention
advisory
fee
schedules
direct
either
respondent
supply
require
type
price
floor
arose
respondents
activities
emphasis
supplied
citations
omitted
instant
case
challenged
restraint
affirmative
command
arizona
rules
disciplinary
rule
ultimate
body
wielding
state
power
practice
law
see
ariz
art
bailey
thus
restraint
compelled
direction
state
acting
sovereign
omitted
fact
state
bar
state
agency
limited
purposes
create
antitrust
shield
allows
foster
anticompetitive
practices
benefit
members
state
bar
providing
deviation
county
bar
minimum
fees
may
lead
disciplinary
action
voluntarily
joined
essentially
private
anticompetitive
activity
posture
claim
beyond
reach
sherman
act
footnotes
citation
omitted
goldfarb
therefore
made
clear
purposes
parker
doctrine
every
act
state
agency
state
sovereign
lafayette
louisiana
power
light
plurality
opinion
rather
anticompetitive
actions
state
instrumentality
compelled
state
acting
sovereign
immune
antitrust
laws
see
also
opinion
burger
cantor
detroit
edison
opinion
burger
antitrust
attack
falls
parker
challenges
decision
sovereign
decision
state
bar
indisputably
sovereign
see
california
retail
liquor
dealers
assn
midcal
aluminum
decision
sovereign
arizona
attacked
conspiracy
petitioners
neither
compelled
directed
sovereign
stake
since
claim
directed
petitioners
artificially
reduce
number
lawyers
arizona
petitioners
utilize
sovereign
antitrust
immunity
iii
course
true
arizona
delegated
petitioners
task
administering
bar
exam
retained
authority
review
revise
action
taken
petitioners
however
neither
factors
sufficient
accord
petitioners
immunity
sherman
act
bates
held
state
bar
restrictions
attorney
advertising
qualified
antitrust
immunity
state
policy
requiring
anticompetitive
restraint
part
comprehensive
regulatory
system
one
clearly
articulated
affirmatively
expressed
state
policy
state
policy
actively
supervised
state
lafayette
plurality
opinion
omitted
since
adopted
principle
expressed
plurality
opinion
lafayette
anticompetitive
restraints
engaged
state
municipalities
subdivisions
must
clearly
articulated
affirmatively
expressed
state
policy
order
gain
antitrust
exemption
community
communications
boulder
quoting
midcal
nothing
approaching
clearly
articulated
affirmatively
expressed
state
policy
favoring
artificial
limit
number
lawyers
licensed
practice
arizona
indeed
majority
attempt
argue
petitioners
satisfy
test
articulated
policy
found
arizona
law
competent
lawyers
admitted
practice
indeed
policy
petitioners
articulate
agreement
type
alleged
respondent
complaint
entirely
unrelated
clearly
articulated
affirmatively
expressed
policy
arizona
arizona
may
permitted
petitioners
grade
score
respondent
bar
examination
parker
indicates
state
give
immunity
violate
sherman
act
authorizing
violate
declaring
action
lawful
arizona
may
permit
challenged
restraint
hardly
required
consequence
affirmatively
expressed
clearly
articulated
policy
said
state
provision
permitted
require
municipalities
adopt
challenged
restraint
competition
applies
fully
lainly
requirement
clear
articulation
affirmative
expression
satisfied
state
position
one
mere
neutrality
respecting
municipal
actions
challenged
anticompetitive
state
allows
municipalities
please
hardly
said
contemplated
specific
anticompetitive
actions
municipal
liability
sought
acceptance
proposition
general
grant
power
enact
ordinances
necessarily
implies
state
authorization
enact
specific
anticompetitive
ordinances
wholly
eviscerate
concepts
clear
articulation
affirmative
expression
precedents
require
boulder
emphasis
original
iv
conclusion
enough
alleged
complaint
survive
motion
dismiss
warrant
conclusion
respondent
likely
prevail
trial
even
case
likely
survive
motion
summary
judgment
perfectly
clear
admissions
policy
described
arizona
rules
offend
sherman
act
examination
procedure
place
significant
barrier
entry
profession
moreover
significant
measure
discretion
must
employed
administration
testing
procedures
yet
ensuring
competent
licensed
serve
public
entirely
consistent
sherman
act
see
goldfarb
concerned
danger
thousands
aspirants
fail
pass
bar
examinations
every
year
affirmance
appeals
case
well
invite
numerous
suits
questioning
bar
examiners
motives
fears
burdens
discovery
trial
threat
treble
damages
deter
able
citizens
performing
essential
public
service
ante
submit
unduly
alarmed
denial
antitrust
immunity
case
necessarily
pose
realistic
threat
liability
even
prolonged
litigation
respondent
must
first
produce
sufficient
evidence
petitioners
indeed
abused
public
trust
survive
summary
judgment
task
doubt
prove
formidable
moreover
petitioners
motives
necessarily
relevant
respondent
case
proof
demonstrates
petitioners
adopted
reasonable
means
regulating
admission
arizona
bar
basis
competence
respondent
unable
show
requisite
adverse
effect
competition
even
subjective
motivation
one
bar
examiners
tainted
sinister
indeed
even
respondent
show
arbitrarily
denied
admission
bar
reasons
unrelated
qualifications
unless
also
show
occurred
part
anticompetitive
scheme
antitrust
claim
fail
event
true
irony
reliance
concerns
essence
suggesting
special
protective
shield
provided
lawyers
unlike
bakers
engineers
members
craft
may
sufficient
confidence
ability
legal
system
identify
reject
unmeritorious
claims
willing
assume
ordinary
risks
litigation
associated
performance
civic
responsibilities
share
fear
administration
bar
examinations
lawyers
survive
scrutiny
associated
rather
ordinary
litigation
persons
walks
life
expected
endure
also
doubt
believes
lawyers
least
leaders
bar
asked
serve
bar
examiners
always
faithful
fiduciary
responsibilities
though
agree
presumption
indeed
strong
one
nothing
sweeping
language
sherman
act
justifies
carving
rules
lawyers
inapplicable
profession
goldfarb
specifically
rejected
parochialism
indeed
argument
unwise
unnecessary
require
petitioners
comply
sherman
act
simply
attack
upon
wisdom
longstanding
congressional
commitment
policy
free
markets
open
competition
embodied
antitrust
laws
boulder
ignore
commitment
today
denial
antitrust
immunity
case
hardly
leave
state
helpless
cope
felt
exigencies
wish
arizona
remains
free
give
petitioners
affirmative
direction
engage
precise
conduct
respondent
alleged
antitrust
laws
hardly
create
inescapable
burdens
state
simply
require
decisions
displace
free
market
made
overtly
public
officials
subject
public
accountability
rather
secretly
course
conspiracy
involving
representatives
private
guild
accountable
public
indirectly
see
lafayette
plurality
opinion
national
policy
favor
competition
thwarted
casting
gauzy
cloak
state
involvement
essentially
private
arrangement
midcal
practical
concerns
identified
pale
compared
principle
govern
decision
case
rule
law
applies
case
applicable
countless
areas
economy
arbitrary
restraints
entry
may
impose
costs
consuming
public
antitrust
laws
designed
avoid
experience
administration
sherman
act
demonstrated
real
risk
private
associations
purport
merely
regulate
professional
standards
may
fact
use
powers
restrain
competition
threatens
members
little
short
irresponsible
tear
gaping
hole
fabric
antitrust
law
simply
may
confident
respondent
unable
prove
alleges
frivolous
cases
treated
exactly
occasions
fundamental
shifts
legal
doctrine
legal
system
developed
procedures
speedily
disposing
unfounded
claims
inadequate
protect
petitioners
vexatious
litigation
something
wrong
procedures
law
antitrust
immunity
body
law
simply
permit
sherman
act
displaced
neither
state
legislature
state
expressed
desire
preclude
application
antitrust
laws
conduct
stand
benefit
restraints
trade
healthy
respect
state
regulatory
policy
require
immunizing
abuse
public
trust
thin
veneer
state
involvement
insufficient
justification
casting
aside
competitive
ideal
sherman
act
commitment
free
markets
open
competition
evolved
centuries
embodied
sherman
act
sturdy
enough
withstand
petitioners
flimsy
claim
claim
might
merited
support
guilds
today
accorded
punishment
hurdle
respectfully
dissent
riley
memorials
london
london
life
xiiith
xivth
xvth
centuries
punishment
described
eing
drawn
hurdle
principal
streets
city
principal
reason
existence
gild
preserve
members
monopoly
trade
one
gild
merchant
town
buy
sell
except
conditions
imposed
gild
foreigners
coming
countries
traders
english
towns
prohibited
buying
selling
way
might
interfere
interest
gildsmen
must
buy
sell
times
places
articles
provided
gild
regulations
cheyney
introduction
industrial
social
history
england
craft
gilds
existed
usually
authority
town
government
though
frequently
obtained
authorization
even
charter
crown
formed
primarily
regulate
preserve
monopoly
occupations
town
gild
merchant
existed
regulate
trade
town
general
one
carry
trade
without
subject
organization
controlled
trade
professor
handler
pointed
entry
various
fields
endeavor
guarded
numerous
licensing
restrictions
licenses
demanded
physicians
surgeons
dentists
optometrists
pharmacists
druggists
nurses
midwives
chiropodists
veterinarians
certified
public
accountants
lawyers
architects
engineers
surveyors
shorthand
reporters
master
plumbers
undertakers
embalmers
real
estate
brokers
junk
dealers
pawnbrokers
ticket
agents
liquor
dealers
private
detectives
auctioneers
milk
dealers
peddlers
master
pilots
steamship
engineers
weighmasters
forest
guides
motion
picture
operators
itinerant
retailers
boats
employment
agencies
commission
merchants
farm
produce
manufacturers
frozen
desserts
concentrated
feeds
commercial
fertilizers
factory
cannery
place
public
assembly
laundry
cold
storage
warehouse
shooting
gallery
bowling
alley
billiard
parlor
place
storage
explosives
operated
industrial
house
work
carried
without
registration
license
licenses
also
required
sale
minnows
use
fishing
nets
operation
educational
institutions
correspondence
schools
filling
stations
motor
vehicles
motion
pictures
exhibited
unless
licensed
canal
boats
must
registered
handler
cases
materials
trade
regulation
footnotes
omitted
sup
rule
see
app
sup
rule
viii
petitioners
certainly
suggest
existence
criterion
arizona
law
contrary
oral
argument
expressly
acknowledged
state
policy
adopting
criterion
competence
admission
bar
tr
oral
arg
see
mcclain
real
estate
bd
new
orleans
lake
country
estates
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
hospital
building
trustees
rex
hospital
scheuer
rhodes
conley
gibson
see
hughes
rowe
per
curiam
cruz
beto
per
curiam
california
motor
transport
trucking
unlimited
jenkins
mckeithen
plurality
opinion
walker
process
equipment
food
machinery
chemical
see
bates
state
bar
arizona
noted
petitioners
advance
imaginative
argument
decision
rests
examination
procedure
merely
advisory
arizona
made
final
decision
applicant
ante
omitted
presumably
petitioners
familiar
procedures
work
shows
precious
little
deference
administrative
expertise
analysis
facts
surprising
petitioners
must
practice
arizona
advance
theory
relies
challenged
conduct
actually
conduct
arizona
surely
understand
rather
subordinate
see
also
new
motor
vehicle
board
california
orrin
fox
cantor
detroit
edison
response
dissent
advanced
theory
relevant
state
action
state
rejection
original
complaint
filed
containing
plethora
charges
including
substance
complaint
case
ante
see
also
ante
presumably
complaint
simply
deficient
matter
state
law
allegations
respondent
current
complaint
taken
true
fact
respondent
failed
bar
examination
provided
adequate
ground
dismissal
respondent
complaint
without
review
respondent
allegations
even
case
arizona
reviewed
petitioner
complaint
merits
indicate
declined
exercise
power
revision
respect
petitioners
alleged
anticompetitive
policies
far
different
required
petitioners
adopt
policies
first
place
goldfarb
requires
argues
nly
arizona
authority
grant
deny
admission
practice
state
ante
omitted
therefore
concludes
challenged
conduct
allegation
challenged
policy
adopted
permitted
accepting
recommendations
petitioners
yet
bates
goldfarb
make
clear
challenged
policy
must
required
sovereign
fact
retained
power
disapprove
examination
procedure
adopted
petitioners
different
fact
virginia
retained
power
disapprove
fee
schedules
set
bar
association
goldfarb
similar
powers
revision
held
insufficient
justify
immunity
lafayette
cantor
midcal
majority
disavowal
note
quite
unequivocal
points
opinion
see
ante
ultimate
statement
holding
see
ante
seem
rely
denial
respondent
petition
review
truly
critical
majority
follow
individual
respondent
position
file
petition
review
able
mount
antitrust
challenge
free
immunity
barrier
majority
erects
indeed
easy
escape
majority
holding
holding
protect
bar
examiners
parade
horribles
discussed
majority
ante
cases
cites
ante
involve
instances
applicant
passed
bar
examination
nevertheless
recommended
admission
applicant
seeks
judicial
review
cases
indicate
decide
whether
admit
applicant
however
none
cases
indicates
makes
independent
decision
indeed
decision
deny
application
person
failed
bar
examination
see
also
midcal
new
motor
vehicle
board
california
orrin
fox
see
also
cantor
detroit
edison
opinion
burger
cantor
wrote
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
footnotes
omitted
petitioners
appear
abandoned
argument
advanced
first
time
petition
rehearing
appeals
examination
grading
formula
actually
approved
state
majority
appears
revive
abandoned
contention
ante
see
also
ante
necessary
address
though
requires
brief
reference
appeals
opinion
defendants
contend
first
time
rehearing
committee
grading
formula
submitted
reviewed
accepted
response
ronwin
tendered
purports
letter
committee
filed
february
pursuant
rule
vii
ronwin
alleges
committee
scored
examination
admit
number
applicants
letter
advise
accordingly
letter
presented
us
constitutes
submission
basis
clearly
articulated
affirmatively
expressed
state
policy
although
dismissal
might
proper
facts
defendants
argue
first
time
rehearing
facts
never
brought
district
attention
dismissal
therefore
improper
basis
information
district
ronwin
state
bar
arizona
see
generally
arizona
maricopa
county
medical
society
national
society
professional
engineers
majority
makes
rather
surprising
suggestion
principles
discussed
advise
state
legislatures
legislation
restrains
competition
sued
sherman
act
ante
persons
course
complete
defense
since
case
delegated
power
used
restrain
competition
hence
liable
restraint
impose
moreover
sherman
act
protects
right
seek
favorable
legislation
even
reason
injure
competitors
see
california
motor
transport
trucking
unlimited
eastern
railroad
presidents
conference
noerr
motor
freight
majority
focus
cases
surely
reflects
weakness
position
respect
case
order
preserve
secrecy
bar
examination
questions
test
must
vary
year
year
test
given
may
become
apparent
anticipated
passing
grade
adjusted
order
provide
roughly
measure
competence
used
prior
years
thus
respondent
burden
proving
conspiracy
alleged
requires
far
evidence
petitioners
exercised
discretion
setting
passing
grade
results
known
conspiracy
respondent
alleged
proved
procompetitive
justification
plainly
inconsistent
goals
sherman
act
thus
petitioners
claim
antitrust
immunity
arises
least
defensible
context
general
proposition
anticompetitive
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
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
cantor
detroit
edison
blackmun
concurring
judgment
see
arizona
maricopa
county
medical
society
american
society
mechanical
engineers
hydrolevel
national
society
professional
engineers
silver
new
york
stock
exchange
american
medical
assn
fashion
originators
guild
america
ftc
seems
likely
respondent
claim
proves
insubstantial
dealt
manner
claims
means
summary
judgment
perhaps
coupled
award
attorneys
fees
also
develop
case
unreasonably
vexatiously
brought
see