community communications boulder argued october decided january respondent city boulder home rule municipality granted colorado constitution extensive powers local municipal matters petitioner assignee permit granted city ordinance conduct cable television business within city limits originally limited service within certain area city provided petitioner improved technology offered petitioner opportunity expand business areas also offered opportunities potential competitors one expressed interest obtaining permit provide competing service city council enacted emergency ordinance prohibiting petitioner expanding business three months time council draft model cable television ordinance invite new businesses enter market terms ordinance petitioner filed suit federal district alleging restriction violate sherman act seeking preliminary injunction prevent city restricting petitioner proposed expansion city responded moratorium ordinance violative antitrust laws inter alia city enjoyed antitrust immunity state action doctrine parker brown district held parker exemption inapplicable city therefore subject antitrust liability accordingly district issued preliminary injunction appeals reversed holding city action satisfied criteria parker exemption held boulder moratorium ordinance exempt antitrust scrutiny parker doctrine pp ordinance exempt scrutiny unless constitutes either action state sovereign capacity municipal action furtherance implementation clearly articulated affirmatively expressed state policy pp parker state action exemption reflects congress intention embody sherman act federalism principle possess significant measure sovereignty federal constitution principle inherently limited dual system government parker supra place sovereign cities direct delegation powers city home rule amendment colorado constitution render cable television moratorium ordinance act government performed city acting state local matters meet parker state action criterion pp requirement clear articulation affirmative expression state policy fulfilled home rule amendment guarantee local autonomy since state position one mere neutrality respecting challenged moratorium ordinance case involves city action absence regulation state action said implement clearly articulated affirmatively expressed state policy pp respondents argument denial parker exemption case serious adverse consequences cities unduly burden federal courts simply attack upon wisdom longstanding congressional commitment policy free markets open competition embodied antitrust laws laws apply municipalities acting furtherance clearly articulated affirmatively expressed state policy pp brennan delivered opinion marshall blackmun powell stevens joined stevens filed concurring opinion post rehnquist filed dissenting opinion burger joined post white took part consideration decision case harold farrow argued cause petitioner briefs thomas seaton robert youle jeffrey howard argued cause respondents brief kathleen mcginn dale harris bruce reese joseph de raismes alan boles thomas mcmahon assistant attorney general colorado argued cause state colorado et al amici curiae urging reversal brief macfarlane attorney general colorado mary mullarkey solicitor general lawrence theis first assistant attorney general wilson condon attorney general alaska louise mark ashburn assistant attorneys general steve clark attorney general arkansas david williams deputy attorney general richard gebelein attorney general delaware robert lobue deputy attorney general tany hong attorney general hawaii shelton jim deputy attorney general tyrone fahner attorney general illinois thomas genovese assistant attorney general thomas miller attorney general iowa john perkins assistant attorney general robert stephan attorney general kansas wayne hundley deputy attorney general richard cohen attorney general maine stephen sachs attorney general maryland charles monk ii assistant attorney general warren spannaus attorney general minnesota stephen kilgriff special assistant attorney general john ashcroft attorney general missouri william newcomb assistant attorney general mike greely attorney general montana jerome cate paul douglas attorney general nebraska dale comer assistant attorney general jeff bingaman attorney general new mexico james wechsler richard levin assistant attorneys general robert abrams attorney general new york lloyd constantine assistant attorney general william brown attorney general ohio eugene mcshane assistant attorney general leroy zimmerman attorney general pennsylvania eugene waye john shearburn deputy attorneys general dennis roberts ii attorney general rhode island patrick quinlan special assistant attorney general mark white attorney general texas linda aaker assistant attorney general john easton attorney general vermont jay ashman glenn jarrett assistant attorneys general chauncey browning attorney general west virginia charles brown deputy attorney general bronson la follette attorney general wisconsin michael zaleski assistant attorney general macfarlane attorney general colorado richard hennessey deputy attorney general mary mullarkey solicitor general lawrence theis first assistant attorney general thomas mcmahon assistant attorney general filed brief state colorado amicus curiae urging reversal briefs amici curiae urging affirmance filed bingham kennedy howard gan cable television information center robert pritt john cummins glenn young city akron ohio et al burt pines james doherty john haggerty city los angeles susan griffiths colorado municipal league roger cutler john dekker james brennan henry underhill benjamin brown national institute municipal law officers ross davis howard fogt jay varon catherine klarfeld national league cities justice brennan delivered opinion question presented case district district colorado granted preliminary injunctive relief whether home rule municipality granted state constitution extensive powers local municipal matters enjoys state action exemption sherman act liability announced parker brown respondent city boulder organized home rule municipality constitution state colorado city thus entitled exercise full right local municipal matters respect matters city charter ordinances supersede laws state charter municipal legislative powers exercised elected city council city council enacted ordinance granting colorado televents revocable nonexclusive permit conduct cable television business within city limits permit assigned petitioner since time petitioner provided cable television service university hill area boulder area city population lives geographical reasons broadcast television signals received february due limited service provided technology available petitioner service consisted essentially retransmissions programming broadcast denver cheyenne wyo petitioner market therefore confined university hill area however markedly improved technology became available late enabling petitioner offer many channels entertainment provided local broadcast television thus presented opportunity expand business areas city petitioner may informed city council planned expansion new technology offered opportunities potential competitors well july one newly formed boulder communications bcc also wrote city council expressing interest obtaining permit provide competing cable television service throughout city city council response reviewing cable television policy enactment emergency ordinance prohibiting petitioner expanding business areas city period three months city council announced moratorium planned draft model cable television ordinance invite new businesses enter boulder market terms moratorium necessary petitioner continued expansion drafting model ordinance discourage potential competitors entering market petitioner filed suit district district colorado sought inter alia preliminary injunction prevent city restricting petitioner proposed business expansion alleging restriction violate sherman act city responded moratorium ordinance violative antitrust laws either ordinance constituted exercise city police powers boulder enjoyed antitrust immunity parker doctrine district considered city status home rule municipality determined status gave autonomy city matters local concern operations cable television embrace wider concerns including interstate commerce first amendment rights communicators supp assuming arguendo ordinance within city authority home rule municipality district considered city lafayette louisiana power light concluded parker exemption wholly inapplicable city therefore subject antitrust liability petitioner motion preliminary injunction accordingly granted appeal divided panel appeals tenth circuit reversed majority examining colorado law rejected district conclusion regulation cable television business beyond home rule authority city majority addressed question city claimed parker exemption distinguished present case city lafayette ground contrast municipally operated revenueproducing utility companies issue proprietary interest city involved noting city regulation control active supervision exercised state local government represented expression policy subject matter majority held city actions therefore satisfied criteria parker exemption granted certiorari reverse ii parker brown addressed question whether federal antitrust laws prohibited state exercise sovereign powers imposing certain anticompetitive restraints took form marketing program adopted state california raisin crop program prevented appellee freely marketing crop interstate commerce parker noted california program derived authority legislative command state went hold program therefore exempt virtue sherman act limitations antitrust attack 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 affirmed majority rejected outset petitioners claim quite apart parker congress never intended subject local governments antitrust laws plurality opinion four justices addressed petitioners argument parker properly construed extended governmental entities whether state agencies subdivisions state simply reason status plurality opinion rejected argument discussion parker goldfarb virginia state bar bates state bar arizona precedents construed holding parker exemption reflects federalism principle nation principle makes accommodation sovereign subdivisions plurality opinion said cities sovereign receive federal deference create parker limitation exemption official action directed state consistent fact subdivisions generally treated equivalents light serious economic dislocation result cities free place parochial interests nation economic goals reflected antitrust laws especially unwilling presume congress intended exclude anticompetitive municipal action reach citations omitted precedents thus reveal boulder moratorium ordinance 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 orrin fox midcal boulder argues criteria met direct delegation powers municipalities home rule amendment colorado constitution contends delegation satisfies parker city lafayette standards take arguments turn respondent city parker argument emphasizes home rule amendment people state colorado vested city boulder every power theretofore possessed legislature local municipal affairs power thus possessed boulder city council assertedly embraces regulation cable television claimed pose essentially local problems thus suggested city cable television moratorium ordinance act government performed city acting state local matters meets state action criterion parker reject argument misstates letter law misunderstands spirit parker exemption reflects congress intention embody sherman act federalism principle possess significant measure sovereignty constitution principle contains limitation dual system government parker emphasis added place sovereign cities stated long ago sovereign authority within geographical limits resides either government union exist within broad domain sovereignty two may cities counties organized bodies limited legislative functions derived exist subordination one kagama emphasis added boulder first argues requirement clear articulation affirmative expression fulfilled colorado home rule amendment guarantee local autonomy contends quoting city lafayette means colorado comprehended within powers granted boulder power enact challenged ordinance colorado thereby contemplated boulder enactment anticompetitive regulatory program boulder contends may inferred authority given boulder operate particular area asserted home rule authority regulate cable television legislature contemplated kind action complained emphasis supplied boulder therefore concludes adequate state mandate required city lafayette supra present plainly 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 actions truly described comprehended within powers granted since term granted necessarily implies affirmative addressing subject state state relationship state colorado boulder moratorium ordinance one precise neutrality majority appeals acknowledged concerned city action absence regulation whatever state colorado circumstances interaction state local regulation action exercise authority city indeed boulder argues local matters regulated home rule city colorado general assembly without power act cf city lafayette supra thus boulder view pursue course regulating cable television competition another home rule city choose prescribe monopoly service still another elect competition policies equally contemplated comprehended within powers granted acceptance proposition general grant power enact ordinances necessarily implies state authorization enact specific anticompetitive ordinances wholly eviscerate concepts clear articulation affirmative expression precedents require iii respondents argue denial parker exemption present case serious adverse consequences cities unduly burden federal courts argument simply attack upon wisdom longstanding congressional commitment policy free markets open competition embodied antitrust laws laws like federal laws imposing civil criminal sanctions upon persons course apply municipalities well corporate entities moreover judicial enforcement congress regarding exemption renders state less able allocate governmental power political subdivisions means state directed authorized anticompetitive practice state subdivisions exercising delegated power must obey antitrust laws city lafayette observed case today decision threaten legitimate exercise governmental power preclude municipal government providing services monopoly basis parker progeny make clear state properly may direct authorize instrumentalities act way reflect state policy inconsistent antitrust laws ssuming municipality authorized provide service monopoly basis limitations municipal action hobble execution legitimate governmental programs omitted ordered footnotes boulder charter rev district noted late cable television throughout country concerned primarily retransmission television signals areas normal reception special local weather news services originated cable operators late however satellite technology impacted industry prompted rapid almost geometric rise growth earth stations became less expensive home box office companies developed public response cable television greatly increased market demand expanded services state art presently allows channels including movies sports fm radio educational children religious programming institutional uses cable television fast increasing technology service capability future potential cable television referred blue sky indicating virtually unlimited technological improvements still expected supp bcc defendant respondent regarding letter district noted bcc outlined proposal new system acknowledging presence petitioner boulder stating hatever action city takes regard petitioner plan bcc begin building system soon feasible city grants bcc permit city council initiat ed review reconsideration cable television view many changes industry since accordingly hired consultant held number study meetings develop governmental response changes primary thrust consultant advice city concerned tendency cable system become natural monopoly much discussion city council centered around supposed unfair advantage petitioner already operating boulder members council city manager expressed fears petitioner might best cable operator boulder nonetheless operator head start area council wanted create situation cable companies make offers hampered possibility petitioner build whole area even arrived ibid preamble ordinance offered following declarations justification enactment able television companies within recent months displayed interest serving community requested city council grant permission use public providing service present permittee petitioner indicated intends extend services near future city council finds extension result hindering ability companies compete boulder market city council intends adopt model cable television permit ordinance solicit applications interested cable television companies evaluate applications determine whether grant additional permits within months finds extension service petitioner result disruption application evaluation process city council finds placing temporary geographical limitations upon operations petitioner impair present services offered city boulder residents impair ability improve services within area presently served boulder ordinance council reached conclusion despite bcc statement contrary see supra stat amended section sherman act provides pertinent part contract combination conspiracy restraint trade commerce among several declared illegal petitioner also alleged inter alia city bcc engaged conspiracy restrict competition substituting bcc petitioner district noted although petitioner gathered circumstantial evidence might indicate conspiracy evidence insufficient establish probability petitioner prevail claim district also held per se antitrust violation appeared record petitioner protected first amendment regulation attempted city majority cited california retail liquor dealers assn midcal aluminum support reading city lafayette concluded city lafayette applicable situation wherein governmental entity asserting governmental rather proprietary interest instead doctrine applicable exempt city antitrust liability dissent urged affirmance agreeing district analysis antitrust exemption issue markey customs patent appeals sitting designation dissenting dissent also considered city actions violate ommon principles contract law equity well first amendment rights petitioner customers actual potential petition certiorari present first amendment question address opinion appeals described applicable standard follows necessary point express statutory mandate act alleged violate antitrust laws suffice challenged activity clearly within legislative intent thus trial judge may ascertain authority given governmental entity operate particular area legislature contemplated kind action complained hand connection legislative grant power subordinate entity asserted use power may tenuous permit conclusion entity intended scope activity encompassed conduct district judge inquiry point broad enough include evidence might show scope legislative intent citation omitted chief justice concurring opinion focused nature challenged activity rather identity parties suit distinguished proprietary enterprises municipalities omitted traditional government functions viewed parker exemption extending municipalities engaged latter midcal held california resale price maintenance system affecting wine producers wholesalers within state entitled exemption antitrust laws holding explicitly adopted principle expressed plurality opinion city lafayette anticompetitive restraints engaged state municipalities subdivisions must clearly articulated affirmatively expressed state policy order gain antitrust exemption midcal price maintenance system issue midcal denied exemption failed satisfy active state supervision criterion described city lafayette underlying decision bates state bar arizona conclude present case boulder moratorium ordinance satisfy clear articulation affirmative expression criterion reach question whether ordinance must satisfy active state supervision test focused upon midcal denver urban renewal authority byrne quoting metropolitan capital improvement district board county emphasis original byrne went state virtue article xx home rule city inferior general assembly concerning local municipal affairs petitioner strongly disputes respondent city premise construction byrne citing city county denver sweet city county denver tihen mcquillin municipal corporations contrary authority us determine correct view issue matter state law parker affords exemption federal antitrust laws based upon congress intentions respecting scope laws thus availability parker exemption must matter federal law boulder cites decision colorado manor vail condominium assn vail authority proposition regulation cable television local matter petitioner disputes proposition boulder reading manor vail citing rebuttal southwestern cable holding cable television systems engaged interstate communication contention petitioner joined state colorado filed amicus brief support petitioner purposes decision assume without deciding respondent city enactment moratorium ordinance challenge fall within scope power delegated city virtue colorado home rule amendment respondent city urges distinction present case parker act government imposed home rule city rather state legislature parker colorado law argument continues distinction without difference since sphere local affairs home rule cities colorado possess every power held state legislature boulder also contends moratorium ordinance qualifies antitrust immunity test set forth chief justice city lafayette concurrence see supra challenged activity clearly traditional government function rather proprietary enterprise antitrust laws general sherman act particular magna carta free enterprise important preservation economic freedom system bill rights protection fundamental personal freedoms freedom guaranteed every business matter small freedom compete assert vigor imagination devotion ingenuity whatever economic muscle muster topco associates see city lafayette hold today parker brown exemption bar district grant injunctive relief case preliminary posture makes unnecessary us consider issues regarding applicability antitrust laws context suits private litigants government defendants said city lafayette may certain activities might appear anticompetitive engaged private parties take different complexion adopted local government compare national society professional engineers considering validity anticompetitive restraint imposed private agreement exxon governor maryland holding anticompetitive effect insufficient basis invalidating state law moreover city lafayette supra confront issue remedies appropriate municipal officials justice stevens concurring opinion joined explains city boulder entitled exemption antitrust laws dissenting opinion seems assume analysis exemption issue tantamount holding antitrust laws violated assumption valid dissent dire predictions consequences holding therefore viewed skepticism city lafayette louisiana power light held municipalities activities providers services exempt sherman act reasons denying exemption city lafayette equally applicable city boulder even though colorado state hold city lafayette city violated antitrust laws moreover question quite different question whether city boulder violated sherman act character respective activities differs cases violation issue separate distinct exemption issue brief reference decision cantor detroit edison identify invalidity dissent assumption case michigan public utility commission approved tariff required detroit edison provide customers free light bulbs company contended light bulb distribution program therefore exempt antitrust laws authority parker brown see rejected company interpretation parker held plaintiff proceed antitrust attack company program surely suggest members michigan public utility commission authorized program attack thereby become parties violation sherman act contrary plurality opinion reviewed parker case great detail emphasize obvious difference charge public officials violated sherman act charge private parties done premature stage litigation comment question whether petitioner able establish respondents violated antitrust laws answer question may depend factual legal issues must resolved first instance district accordance belief adhere settled policy giving concrete meaning general language sherman act process adjudication specific controversies opinion stevens offer gratuitous advice questions think might relevant observation violation issue nearly simple dissenting opinion implies cf cantor detroit edison stewart dissenting holding surely result disruption operation every public utility company nation creation prospect massive treble damage liabilities quoting posner proper relationship state regulation federal antitrust laws rev see also railroad retirement bd fritz see opinion stevens point made explicit two passages plurality opinion plurality stated cumulative effect carefully drafted references unequivocally differentiates official action one hand individual action even commanded state hand point repeated text 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 omitted omitted quotation stated indeed even occur plaintiff state officials might violated sherman act question first raised see bates state bar arizona bviously cantor entirely different case claim directed public official public agency rather private party justice rehnquist chief justice justice join dissenting decision case flawed two serious respects thereby impede paralyze local governments efforts enact ordinances regulations aimed protecting public health safety welfare fear subjecting local government liability sherman act et seq first treats issue case whether municipality exempt sherman act decision parker brown question addressed parker case whether state local governments exempt sherman act whether statutes ordinances regulations enacted act government sherman act operation supremacy clause second holding municipality ordinances exempt antitrust scrutiny enactment furthers implements clearly articulated affirmatively expressed state policy ante treats political subdivision state entity indistinguishable privately owned business read opinion municipality may said violate antitrust laws enacting legislation conflict sherman act unless legislation enacted pursuant affirmative state policy supplant competitive market forces area economy regulated exemption fundamentally distinct concepts involves supremacy clause implicates basic notions federalism preemption analysis invoked whenever called upon examine interplay enactments two different sovereigns one federal state handler antitrust colum rev confronted questions supremacy clause called upon resolve purported conflict enactments federal government state local government claimed federal government occupied particular field exclusively foreclose state regulation found state enactment must fall without effort accommodate state purposes interests treads sensitive area relations reluctant infer exxon governor maryland presumption preemption found absent clear manifest intention congress federal act supersede police powers ray atlantic richfield contrast exemption involves interplay enactments single sovereign whether one enactment intended congress relieve party necessity complying prior enactment see national broiler marketing assn sherman act act philadelphia national bank clayton act bank merger act silver new york stock exchange sherman act securities exchange act since enactments one sovereign involved problems federalism present interpreting statute must simply attempt ascertain congressional intent whether exemption claimed express implied presumptions utilized exemption analysis quite distinct applied context examining exemption questions proper approach analysis reconciles operation statutory schemes one another rather holding one completely ousted silver new york stock exchange supra distinction mind think quite clear questions involving state action doctrine properly framed ones rather exemption issues doctrine inevitably involve state local regulation contended conflict sherman act decision parker brown supra genesis state action doctrine case involved challenge program established pursuant california agricultural prorate act sought restrict competition state raisin industry limiting producer ability distribute raisins private channels program thus sought maintain prices level higher maintained unregulated market assumed program violate sherman act organized made effective solely virtue contract combination conspiracy private persons individual corporate congress exercise commerce power prohibit state maintaining stabilization program like present effect interstate commerce regard noted ccupation legislative field congress exercise granted power familiar example constitutional power suspend state laws ibid held however 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 clearly language federal supremacy clause decided parker congress intend sherman act override state legislation designed regulate economy language exemption either express implied usual incantation repeals implication disfavored instead held state regulation economy necessarily antitrust laws even acts purely private parties constitute violation sherman act recognized however state regulation sherman act explaining state got give immunity violate sherman act authorizing violate declaring action lawful two recent parker doctrine cases reveal clearly state action doctrine exemption instead matter federal new motor vehicle bd california orrin fox examined contention california automobile franchise act conflicted sherman act act required motor vehicle manufacturer secure approval california new motor vehicle board open dealership within existing franchisee market area competing franchisee objected delaying opening new dealership whenever competing dealership protested act arguably gave effect privately initiated restraints trade thus invalid schwegmann calvert distillers held act outside purview sherman act contemplated system regulation clearly articulated affirmatively expressed designed displace unfettered business freedom matter establishment relocation automobile dealerships also held state statute invalid sherman act merely statute anticompetitive effect otherwise adverse effect upon competition enough render statute invalid sherman act power engage economic regulation effectively destroyed quoting exxon governor maryland new motor vehicle held state statute stand face purported conflict sherman act california retail liquor dealers assn midcal aluminum invalidated california system face challenge sherman act first held program constituted resale price maintenance consistently held per se violation sherman act concluded program fit within parker doctrine although restraint imposed pursuant clearly articulated affirmatively expressed state policy program actively supervised state state merely authorized enforced price fixing established private parties instead establishing prices reviewing reasonableness absence sufficient state supervision held pricing system invalid sherman act unlike instant case parker midcal new motor vehicle bd involved challenges state statute suggestion state violates sherman act enacts legislation saved parker doctrine invalidation sherman act instead statute simply unenforceable sherman act contrast gist opinion municipality may actually violate antitrust laws merely enacts ordinance invalid sherman act unless ordinance implements affirmatively expressed state policy according majority municipality may liable sherman act enacting anticompetitive legislation unless show acting simply instrumentality state viewing parker doctrine manner troubling consequences lower courts must adapt antitrust principles adjudicate sherman act challenges local regulation economy majority suggests much among many problems encountered whether per se rules illegality apply municipal defendants manner applied private defendants another question remedies understandably leaves open question whether municipalities may liable treble damages enacting anticompetitive ordinances protected parker doctrine troubling however questions regarding factors may examined pursuant rule reason national society professional engineers held anticompetitive restraint defended basis private party conclusion competition posed potential threat public safety ethics particular profession rule reason support defense based assumption competition unreasonable professional engineers holds decision replace competition regulation within competence private entities instead private entities may defend restraints basis restraint unreasonable effect competition procompetitive effects outweigh anticompetitive effects see continental gte sylvania applying professional engineers municipalities mean ordinance defended basis benefits community terms traditional health safety public welfare concerns outweigh anticompetitive effects local government disabled displacing competition regulation thus municipality violate sherman act enacting restrictive zoning ordinances requiring business occupational licenses granting exclusive franchises utility services even city determined best interests inhabitants displace competition regulation competition simply interests lie behind social welfare legislation although state local enactments invalidated sherman act merely may anticompetitive effects exxon governor maryland supra hesitated invalidate statutes basis program violate antitrust laws engaged private parties see california retail liquor dealers assn midcal aluminum supra resale price maintenance schwegmann calvert distillers cf parker brown assumed stabilization program violate sherman act organized effected private persons unless municipality point affirmatively expressed state policy displace competition given area sought regulated municipality held violate sherman act regulatory scheme rendered invalid surely seek require municipality justify every ordinance enacts terms procompetitive effects municipalities permitted enact ordinances consistent procompetitive policies sherman act municipality power regulate economy destroyed see exxon governor maryland country municipalities unable experiment innovative social programs see new state ice liebmann brandeis dissenting hand rejecting rationale professional engineers accommodate municipal defendant opens different sort pandora box rule reason modified permit municipality defend regulation basis benefits community outweigh anticompetitive effects courts called upon review social legislation manner reminiscent lochner lochner new york era federal courts called upon engage essentially standardless inquiry reasonableness local regulation properly rejected instead liberty contract substantive due process procompetitive principles sherman act governing standard reasonableness local regulation determined neither due process clause sherman act authorizes federal courts invalidate local regulation economy simply upon opining municipality acted unwisely sherman act deemed authorize federal courts substitute social economic beliefs judgment legislative bodies elected pass laws ferguson skrupa federal courts appointed sherman act sit superlegislature weigh wisdom legislation lincoln federal labor union northwestern iron metal leaps abyss holds municipalities may violate sherman act enacting economic social legislation think consequences decision terms effect upon antitrust principles desires apply local governments upon role federal courts examining validity local regulation economy analyzing problem one federal rather exemption avoid problems confronted anomaly holding municipality liable enacting anticompetitive ordinances federal courts required engage standardless review reasonableness local legislation rather question simply whether ordinance enacted sherman act see reason different rule applied testing validity municipal ordinances standard presently apply assessing state statutes see reason municipal ordinance upheld satisfies midcal criteria ordinance survives enacted pursuant affirmative policy part city restrain competition city actively supervises implements policy case state agree city may simply authorize private parties engage activity violate sherman act see parker brown case state municipality may become participant private agreement combination others restraint trade apart misconstruing parker doctrine matter exemption rather majority comes startling conclusion federalism way implicated municipal ordinance invalidated sherman act see principled basis conclude municipal ordinances susceptible invalidation sherman act state statutes majority concludes since municipalities hence sovereigns notions federalism implicated federal law applied invalidate otherwise constitutionally valid municipal legislation find reasoning remarkable indeed notions federalism implicated contended municipal ordinance federal statute made distinction subdivisions regard effects federal law standards applied regardless whether challenged enactment state one political subdivisions see city burbank lockheed air terminal huron portland cement detroit suspect intended dramatically alter established principles supremacy clause analysis yet precisely appears done holding municipality may invoke parker doctrine extent private litigant since parker doctrine matter federal supremacy clause apply challenges municipal regulation similar fashion applies challenge state regulatory enactment distinction cities created majority principled basis support issue properly framed terms rather exemption parker doctrine employed determine whether local legislation sherman act like state municipality haled federal order justify decision competition replaced regulation parker doctrine correctly holds federal interest protecting fostering competition infringed long state local regulation structured ensure truly government regulated private entities replacing competition regulation ii treating municipal defendant different private litigant attempting invoke parker doctrine decision today radically alter relationship political subdivisions municipalities longer able regulate local economy without imprimatur clearly expressed state policy displace competition decision today effectively destroys home rule movement country local governments obtained without persistent state opposition limited autonomy matters local concern municipalities stand lose decision today autonomy state totally disabled enacting legislation dealing matters local concern municipality defenseless challenges regulation local economy case state disabled articulating policy displace competition regulation nothing short altering relationship municipality state enable local government legislate matters important inhabitants order defend sherman act attacks home rule municipality cede authority back state unfortunate enough today holds federalism implicated municipal legislation invalidated federal statute nothing less novel egregious error uses sherman act regulate relationship political subdivisions challenges municipal ordinances undoubtedly made pursuant one elements violation proof contract combination conspiracy may argued municipalities face liability difficult allege enactment ordinance product contract combination conspiracy ease ordinance instant case labeled contract hardly give municipalities solace regard take considerable feat judicial gymnastics conclude municipalities subject treble damages compensate person injured business property section clayton act mandatory person shall injured business property reason anything forbidden antitrust laws shall recover threefold damages sustained see city lafayette louisiana power light blackmun dissenting lochner era interpretation due process clause complemented antitrust policies sought compel competitive behavior part private enterprise generally forbade government interference competitive forces marketplace see strong economic philosophy lochner emergence embrasure emasculation rev since municipality violate antitrust laws enacts legislation sherman act problems remedy state local legislation simply invalid unenforceable midcal standards applied either determined assumed regulatory program violate sherman act conceived operated private persons see parker brown california retail liquor dealers assn midcal aluminum statute simply conduct contemplated statute might violate antitrust laws see joseph seagram sons hostetter conversely reliance state statute insulate private party liability antitrust laws unless statute satisfies midcal criteria understandably avoids determining whether local ordinances must satisfy active state supervision prong midcal test seem rather odd require municipal ordinances enforced state rather city seeing opportunity recapture power lost local affairs state colorado joined supported petitioner amicus curiae curious indeed seek use supremacy clause sword often must defend enactments invalidating effects