southern motor carriers rate conf argued november decided march petitioner southern motor carriers rate conference petitioner north carolina motor carriers association petitioners rate bureaus composed motor common carriers operating north carolina georgia tennessee mississippi submit behalf members joint rate proposals public service commission state collective ratemaking authorized compelled respective contending petitioners collective ratemaking violates federal antitrust laws filed action federal district enjoin petitioners responded conduct immune federal antitrust laws virtue state action doctrine parker brown district entered summary judgment government favor appeals affirmed holding compulsion threshold requirement finding parker immunity reasoned test california retail dealers assn midcal aluminum determining whether state regulation private parties shielded federal antitrust laws challenged restraint must one clearly articulated affirmatively expressed state policy state must supervise actively private anticompetitive conduct inapplicable suits private parties even midcal applicable private conduct compelled taken pursuant clearly articulated state policy within meaning midcal first prong goldfarb virginia state bar held state bar acting alone immunize federal antitrust laws anticompetitive conduct fixing minimum fees lawyers cited approval midcal midcal endorsed continued validity compulsion requirement held petitioners collective ratemaking activities although compelled respective immune federal antitrust liability state action doctrine midcal test used determine whether private rate bureaus collective ratemaking activities protected federal antitrust laws moreover actions private party attributed clearly articulated state policy within meaning midcal test first prong even absence compulsion anticompetitive conduct taken pursuant clearly articulated state policy first prong midcal test north carolina georgia tennessee statutes expressly permit collective ratemaking mississippi expressly approving collective ratemaking clearly articulated intent displace price competition among common carriers regulatory structure government conceded adequate state supervision prongs midcal test satisfied pp reversed powell delivered opinion burger brennan marshall blackmun rehnquist joined stevens filed dissenting opinion white joined post allen hirsch argued cause petitioners brief petitioner southern motor carriers rate conference simon miller bryce rea patrick mceligot filed briefs petitioner north carolina motor carriers association william paul rodgers filed briefs petitioner national association regulatory utility commissioners deputy solicitor general wallace argued cause brief solicitor general lee assistant attorney general mcgrath deputy assistant attorney general rule carter phillips catherine elliott seiden nancy garrison briefs amici curiae urging reversal filed american movers conference et al james calderwood edward kiley robert harris edison electric institute eason balch hampton boles briefs amici curiae urging affirmance filed state iowa et al thomas miller attorney general iowa john perkins william raisch assistant attorneys general charles oberly iii attorney general delaware dennis roberts ii attorney general rhode island faith la salle special assistant attorney general bronson la follette attorney general wisconsin michael zaleski assistant attorney general linley pearson attorney general indiana frank baldwin deputy attorney general national industrial transportation league john donelan frederic wood national small shipments traffic conference et al daniel sweeney justice powell delivered opinion southern motor carriers rate conference smcrc north carolina motor carriers association ncmca petitioners rate bureaus composed motor common carriers operating four southeastern rate bureaus behalf members submit joint rate proposals public service commission state approval rejection collective ratemaking authorized compelled rate bureaus operate contending collective ratemaking violates federal antitrust laws filed action enjoin rate bureaus alleged anticompetitive practices consider whether petitioners collective ratemaking activities though compelled entitled sherman act immunity state action doctrine parker brown north carolina georgia mississippi tennessee public service commissions set motor common carriers rates intrastate transportation general commodities common carriers required submit proposed rates relevant commission approval proposed rate becomes effective state agency takes action within specified period time hearing scheduled however rate become effective affirmative agency approval state public service commissions thus exercise ultimate authority control intrastate rates four common carriers allowed agree rate proposals prior joint submission regulatory agency reducing number proposals collective ratemaking permits agency consider carefully submission fact public service commissions stated without collective ratemaking unable function effectively bodies nevertheless collective ratemaking compelled every common carrier remains free submit individual rate proposals public service commissions indicated smcrc ncmca private associations composed motor common carriers operating north carolina georgia mississippi tennessee organizations committees consider possible rate changes rate committee concludes intrastate rate changed collective proposal changed rate submitted state public service commission members bureau however bound joint proposal disapproving member may submit independent rate proposal state regulatory commission november instituted action smcrc ncmca district northern district georgia charged two rate bureaus violated sherman act conspiring members fix rates intrastate transportation general commodities rate bureaus responded conduct exempt federal antitrust laws virtue state action doctrine see parker brown asserted collective ratemaking activities violate sherman act rates ultimately determined appropriate state agencies district found rate bureaus arguments meritless entered summary judgment favor government supp defendants enjoined engaging collective ratemaking activities members appeals fifth circuit unit eleventh circuit sitting en banc affirmed judgment district relying primarily goldfarb virginia state bar held rate bureaus challenged conduct compelled state entitled parker immunity test set forth california retail liquor dealers assn midcal aluminum irrelevant reasoned case public official named defendant appeals held even midcal applicable private party claim state action immunity rate bureaus shielded liability sherman act concluded anticompetitive acts private party compelled state policy held clearly articulated affirmatively expressed within meaning midcal finding rate bureaus entitled parker immunity appeals held collective ratemaking activities violated sherman act rejected rate bureaus contention regulatory agencies ultimate authority control rates charged federal antitrust laws violated appeals found joint ratesetting reduce amount independent rate filing otherwise characterize market process thus raised prices charged intrastate transportation general commodities naked price restraint reasoned per se illegal ibid four judges strongly dissented argued midcal applicable private party claim state action immunity success antitrust action depend upon activity challenged rather identity defendant asserting midcal provided relevant test dissenters concluded lack compulsion dispositive even absence compulsion state articulate clear express policy dissent concluded per se compulsion requirement denies needed flexibility formation regulatory programs thus inconsistent principles federalism congress intended embody sherman act granted certiorari decide whether petitioners collective ratemaking activities though compelled operate entitled parker immunity ii parker brown held sherman act intended prohibit imposing restraints competition raisin producer filed action california director agriculture enjoin enforcement state agricultural prorate act statute cartel private raisin producers created order stabilize prices prevent economic waste recognized state program anticompetitive assumed congress exercise commerce power prohibit state maintaining stabilization program nevertheless refused find sherman act unexpressed purpose nullify state control officers agents although parker involved action state official reasoning extends suits private parties parker decision premised assumption congress enacting sherman act intend compromise ability regulate domestic commerce parker immunity limited actions public officials assumed congressional purpose frustrated state unable implement programs restrain competition among private parties plaintiff frustrate program merely filing suit regulated private parties rather state officials implement plan decline reduce parker holding formalism stand little proposition porter brown sued wrong parties cantor detroit edison stewart dissenting circumstances parker immunity available private parties state agencies officials regulating conduct private parties defined specifically decision california retail liquor dealers assn midcal aluminum see hallie eau claire ante midcal affirmed injunction prohibiting officials enforcing statute requiring wine producers establish resale price schedules set forth test determining whether state regulation private parties shielded federal antitrust laws first challenged restraint must one clearly articulated affirmatively expressed state policy quoting lafayette louisiana power light opinion brennan second state must supervise actively private anticompetitive conduct supervision requirement prevents state frustrating national policy favor competition casting gauzy cloak state involvement essentially private anticompetitive conduct iii midcal test expressly provide actions private party must compelled state order protected federal antitrust laws appeals however held compulsion threshold requirement finding parker immunity reached conclusion finding midcal inapplicable suits brought private parties ii even midcal applicable private conduct compelled taken pursuant clearly articulated state policy within meaning midcal first prong iii goldfarb cited approval midcal midcal endorsed continued validity compulsion requirement consider points order appeals held midcal involved suit state agency inapplicable private party named defendant midcal however given narrow reading case concerned state regulation restraining competition among private parties therefore test set forth midcal used determine whether private rate bureaus collective ratemaking activities protected federal antitrust laws success antitrust action depend upon nature activity challenged rather identity defendant see cantor detroit edison supra burger concurring part concurring judgment lafayette louisiana power light supra burger concurring part concurring judgment appeals held even midcal applicable rate bureaus immune federal antitrust liability according actions private party attributed clearly articulated state policy within meaning midcal test first prong left private party carry policy sees fit four petitioners operate common carriers free submit proposals individually therefore reasoned policies neutral respect collective ratemaking policies frustrated federal antitrust laws construed require individual submissions reaching conclusion appeals assumed anticompetitive activity compelled state interest whether private parties engage conduct type analysis ignores manner case clearly intended permissive policies work common carriers probably engage collective ratemaking allow share cost preparing rate proposals joint rates viewed high however carriers individually may submit lower proposed rates commission order obtain larger share market thus actions private common carriers may achieve desired balance efficiency collective ratemaking competition fostered individual submissions construing sherman act prohibit collective rate proposals eliminates free choice necessary ensure policies function manner intended federal antitrust laws forbid adopt policies permit compel anticompetitive conduct regulated private parties long state clearly articulates intent adopt permissive policy first prong midcal test satisfied goldfarb virginia state bar said threshold inquiry determining anticompetitive activity state action type sherman act meant proscribe whether activity required state acting sovereign midcal cited goldfarb approval basis citation appeals reasoned midcal eliminate compulsion requirement goldfarb goldfarb however properly read making compulsion sine qua non state action immunity case virginia state bar state agency compelled fairfax county lawyers adhere schedule goldfarb therefore concerned necessity compulsion presence case issue focal point goldfarb opinion source anticompetitive policy rather whether challenged conduct compelled held state bar acting alone immunize anticompetitive conduct instead held private parties entitled parker immunity state acting sovereign intended displace competition see lafayette louisiana power light opinion brennan goldfarb made clear purposes parker doctrine every act state agency state sovereign although goldfarb employ language compulsion beyond dispute reached result applied test later set forth midcal stated virginia sovereign clearly articulated policy designed displace price competition among lawyers fact virginia explicitly directed lawyers controlled schedules goldfarb supra although recognize language goldfarb without ambiguity read opinion making compulsion prerequisite finding state action immunity parker doctrine represents attempt resolve conflicts may arise principles federalism goal antitrust laws unfettered competition marketplace compulsion requirement inconsistent values reduces range regulatory alternatives available state time insofar encourages require rather merely permit anticompetitive conduct compulsion requirement may result greater restraints trade believe congress intended resolve conflicts two competing interests impairing necessary summary hold midcal test applicable private parties claims state action immunity moreover state policy expressly permits compel anticompetitive conduct may clearly articulated within meaning midcal holding today suggest however compulsion irrelevant contrary compulsion often best evidence state clearly articulated affirmatively expressed policy displace competition see hallie eau claire ante areeda turner antitrust law supp compulsion powerful evidence existence state policy nevertheless evidence conclusively shows state intends adopt permissive policy absence compulsion prove fatal claim parker immunity iv holding inflexible compulsion requirement suggest necessarily petitioners collective ratemaking activities shielded federal antitrust laws private party may claim state action immunity prongs midcal test satisfied appeals found government concedes state public service commissions actively supervise collective ratemaking activities rate bureaus therefore issue left resolve whether petitioners challenged conduct taken pursuant clearly articulated state policy public service commissions north carolina georgia mississippi tennessee permit collective ratemaking see supra acting alone however agencies immunize private anticompetitive conduct goldfarb state bar special type state agency prohibited lawyers charging fees lower set forth schedules published local bar nevertheless held local lawyers immune antitrust liability anticompetitive conduct required state sovereign parker immunity available challenged activity undertaken pursuant clearly articulated policy state policy approved state legislature see new motor vehicle bd cal orrin fox state bates state bar arizona case therefore petitioners entitled parker immunity collective ratemaking clearly sanctioned legislatures four rate bureaus operate north carolina georgia tennessee statutes explicitly permit collective ratemaking common carriers rate bureaus challenged actions least taken pursuant express clearly articulated state policy mississippi legislature however specifically addressed collective ratemaking therefore must consider whether absence statute expressly permitting challenged conduct first prong midcal test satisfied mississippi motor carrier regulatory law miss code ann et seq supp gives state public service commission authority regulate common carriers statute provides commission prescribe reasonable rates intrastate transportation general commodities legislature thus made clear intent intrastate rates determined regulatory agency rather market details inherently anticompetitive process however left agency discretion state commission exercised discretion actively encouraging collective ratemaking among common carriers see response state mississippi mississippi public service amici curiae district nd believe actions petitioners took pursuant regulatory program deprived parker immunity private party acting pursuant anticompetitive regulatory program need point specific detailed legislative authorization challenged conduct lafayette louisiana power light opinion brennan long state sovereign clearly intends displace competition particular field regulatory structure first prong midcal test satisfied goldfarb held parker immunity unavailable state sovereign intend away competition among lawyers similarly cantor anticompetitive acts private utility held unprotected michigan legislature indicated intention displace competition relevant market detail clear intent displace competition required legislature find difficult implement regulatory agencies anticompetitive policies agencies created able deal problems unforeseeable outside competence legislature requiring express authorization every action agency might find necessary effectuate state policy diminish destroy usefulness cf hallie eau claire ante requiring explicit legislative authorization anticompetitive activity impose detrimental side effects upon municipalities local autonomy therefore hold state intent establish anticompetitive regulatory program clear mississippi state failure describe implementation policy detail subject program restraints federal antitrust laws summary hold petitioners collective ratemaking activity immune sherman act liability anticompetitive conduct taken pursuant clearly articulated state policy legislatures north carolina georgia tennessee expressly permit motor common carriers submit collective rate proposals public service commissions authority accept reject modify recommendation mississippi fourth state petitioners operate expressly approved collective ratemaking articulated clearly intent displace price competition among common carriers regulatory structure anticompetitive conduct taken pursuant regulatory program satisfies first prong midcal test second prong midcal test likewise met government conceded relevant agencies actively supervise conduct private parties conclude petitioners collective ratemaking activities although compelled immune antitrust liability doctrine parker brown accordingly judgment appeals reversed ordered footnotes interstate commerce commission power fix common carriers rates interstate transportation general commodities interstate commerce act however expressly reserves regulation common carriers intrastate rates even rates affect interstate commerce stat code ann miss code ann code ann stat code ann miss code ann code ann supp stat code ann supp pub serv rule response state mississippi mississippi public service amici curiae nd code ann supp pub serv rule rules regulations statutes governing motor carriers see response state mississippi mississippi public service supra moreover uniformity prices collective ratemaking tends produce considered desirable legislature least one state public service commission another see stat miss pub serv rule rules practice procedure general rules regulations miss motor carrier act amended stat pub serv rule supra response state mississippi mississippi public service supra pub serv rule supra time action filed smcrc represented common carrier members public service commissions north carolina georgia mississippi tennessee alabama smcrc however longer active alabama public service commission brief petitioners ncmca represents members regulatory agency north carolina smcrc separate rate committee members operate north carolina georgia mississippi tennessee ncmca concerned solely matters north carolina public service commission one rate committee addition providing forum members discuss rate proposals rate bureaus publish tariffs supplements containing rates carriers agree ii provide counsel staff experts facilities preparation cost studies exhibits testimony use support proposed rates hearings held regulatory commissions motor carriers traffic association mcta another rate bureau operating north carolina also named defendant mcta appeal district judgment party district permitted national association regulatory utility commissioners naruc organization composed state agencies intervene defendant see fed rule civ proc throughout litigation naruc represented interests public service commissions defendant rate bureaus operate defendants also contended collective ratemaking activities protected doctrine see eastern railroad presidents conference noerr motor freight mine workers pennington district appeals rejected defense address see infra panel one judge dissenting affirmed district judgment southern motor carriers rate conference case government elected without explanation name defendants state public service commissions regulated motor common carriers intrastate rates en banc appeals reinstated part panel opinion addressed sherman act violation judge clark separate dissenting opinion criticized majority ignoring interstate commerce act public policy history fairness joint petition writ certiorari filed smcrc ncmca naruc although granted certiorari issue well see supra disposition case makes unnecessary consider applicability doctrine petitioners collective ratemaking activities justice stevens noting mplied antitrust immunities disfavored post cites underwriters proposition exceptions written sherman act must come congress dissent apparently finds significance fact federal statute expressly exempts petitioners collective ratemaking activities antitrust laws see post dissent argument point course suggest compulsion prerequisite finding state action immunity instead logical result reasoning require us overrule parker brown progeny state action doctrine implied exemption antitrust laws years congressional acquiescence unwilling abandon parker doctrine justice stevens relies primarily upon underwriters supra georgia pennsylvania first section dissent neither cases however bearing scope parker immunity underwriters supra held business insurance interstate commerce group life health ins royal drug thus subject sherman act proscriptions suggest congressional silence state regulation immunize insurance companies federal antitrust laws instead reasoned parker protect insurance companies authorize combinations insurance companies coerce intimidate boycott competitors consumers manner alleged georgia pennsylvania supra concerned whether congress intended immunize federal regulatory program antitrust laws see infra holding free regulate domestic commerce parker relied upon congressional silence however statements legislative history affirmatively express desire invade legislative authority several see cantor detroit edison stewart dissenting hold today hallie eau claire ante second prong midcal test inapplicable municipalities although anticompetitive conduct must taken pursuant clearly articulated state policy municipality need supervised state order qualify parker immunity see ante dissent argues state regulatory program entitled parker immunity antitrust exemption necessary make program work post quoting cantor detroit edison supra argument overlooks fact exception questionable dictum cantor supra dissent proposed test used deciding whether congress intended immunize federal regulatory program sherman act proscriptions see silver new york stock exchange context federal courts wrongly conclude antitrust exemption unnecessary congress correct error dissent recognizes however supremacy clause prevent state legislatures taking similar remedial action post moreover proposed test prompt kind interference state sovereignty parker intended prevent areeda turner antitrust law therefore hold state action immunity dependent finding exemption federal antitrust laws necessary interstate commerce act motor common carriers permitted compelled engage collective interstate ratemaking clear therefore congress recognized advantages permissive policy think unlikely congress intended prevent adopting virtually identical policies intrastate level contrary government arguments holding suggest state may give immunity violate sherman act authorizing violate parker brown see schwegmann calvert distillers clearly articulated permissive policy satisfy first prong midcal test second prong however prevents casting gauzy cloak state involvement essentially private arrangement midcal active supervision requirement ensures state actions immunize anticompetitive conduct private parties state demonstrated commitment program exercise regulatory oversight see areeda turner antitrust law stat code ann supp code ann mississippi statute stands sharp contrast colorado home rule amendment considered community communications boulder boulder state constitution gave municipalities extensive powers pursuant authority city boulder prohibited cable television company expanding operations held home rule amendment evidence intent displace competition cable television industry boulder anticompetitive ordinance enacted pursuant clearly articulated state policy holding premised fact boulder home rule municipality authorized elect competition alternative regulation case hand mississippi public service commission authorized choose competition instead required prescribe rates motor common carriers basis statutorily enumerated factors miss code ann factors bear discernible relationship prices set perfectly efficient unregulated market therefore mississippi statute clearly indicates legislature intended displace competition intrastate trucking industry regulatory program justice stevens justice white joins dissenting term price fixing generally refers process competitors agree upon prices prevail market goods services offer behavior essential every public program regulating industry case example four southern established programs evaluating reasonableness rates motor carriers propose charge intrastate transport require price fixing motor carriers merely tolerate reasoning deductively dictum california retail liquor dealers assn midcal aluminum holds congress intend prohibit price fixing motor carrier rate bureaus least conduct prompted required state public service commission result inconsistent language policies sherman act precedent sherman act interfere regulatory process compelled price fixing unlawful federal law situation regulated carriers face conflicting obligations state federal law success regulatory programs threatened except circumstances immunity antitrust laws doctrine available private persons whatever may peculiar problems characteristics sherman act far agreements concerned establishes one uniform rule applicable industries alike agreements combinations tampering competitive price structures unlawful state legislatures whose powers limited supremacy clause may expressly modify obligations person federal law congress expressly implication may authorize price fixing done particular industries compelling circumstances implied antitrust immunities however disfavored exemptions antitrust laws strictly construed canon construction reflec felt indispensable role antitrust policy maintenance free economy philadelphia national bank consistent treatment insurance business underwriters repeatedly held collusive price fixing railroads unlawful even though end result reasonable charge approved public rate commission georgia pennsylvania freight pennsylvania railroad case explained fact rates fixed may may held unlawful interstate commerce commission immaterial issue us ven combination fix reasonable nondiscriminatory rates may illegal keogh chicago northwestern reason interstate commerce act provide remedies correction abuses might constitute violations laws thus zone reasonableness exists maxima minima within carrier ordinarily free adjust charges chicago within zone commission lacks power grant relief even though rates raised maxima conspiracy among carriers employ unlawful tactics damage must presumed flow conspiracy manipulate rates within zone congress reacted pennsylvania railroad decision much reacted underwriters decision decided matter policy price fixing permitted transportation industry enacted act effectuate policy choice motor carrier act however congress sharply curtailed availability antitrust exemption collective ratemaking still permitted limited circumstances rate bureaus must comply strict procedural requirements see infra defendants stipulated arrangements identical followed carrier rate committees pennsylvania railroad case declared unlawful sherman act see app also acknowledge neither act federal statute expressly exempts price fixing antitrust laws nevertheless contend congress intended prohibit collective ratemaking intrastate motor carriers permitted required state law ii basis defendants claim implied immunity antitrust laws doctrine parker brown however repeatedly recognized private entities may claim immunity unless unlawful conduct compelled state parker case held sherman act reach state action official action directed state case involved price fixing mandated california statute furtherance program raisin farmers held price fixing prohibited sherman act prorate program never intended operate force individual agreement combination derived authority efficacy legislative command state intended operate become effective without command find nothing language sherman act history suggests purpose restrain state officers agents activities directed legislature later case involving price fixing attorneys schedules unanimously stated threshold inquiry determining anticompetitive activity state action type sherman act meant proscribe whether activity required state acting sovereign parker brown continental union carbide goldfarb virginia state bar goldfarb state statute rule required defendant county bar association adopt schedule concluded state action sherman act purposes enough county bar puts anticompetitive conduct prompted state action rather anticompetitive activities must compelled direction state acting sovereign cantor detroit edison also unanimous understanding sovereign compulsion prerequisite immunity opinion observed long settled state authorization approval encouragement participation restrictive private conduct confers antitrust immunity footnotes omitted dissenting justices agreed private conduct come within exemption must merely prompted compelled state action stewart dissenting joined powell rehnquist cantor divided question whether compulsion requirement alone sufficient confer antitrust immunity dissent argued congress intended penalize detroit edison engaging program approved michigan public service commission discontinued without approval commission hand acknowledged continuation program ostensibly required state went consider whether antitrust exemption conduct fundamental state regulatory program since michigan statutes expressed interest regulating electricity market market concluded egardless outcome case michigan interest regulating utilities distribution electricity almost entirely unimpaired state articulated intention regulate market idea distribution program come private utility state requirement program continue sufficient establish immunity antitrust laws unanimous decision california retail liquor dealers assn midcal aluminum signaled departure settled principles area discussing principles law applicable immunity quoted extensively language parker goldfarb recognized compulsion requirement case quite clear midcal california statutes required unlawful activities thus occasion case explore contours compulsion requirement references midcal opinion clearly articulated affirmatively expressed policies actively supervised activities merely restated standards applied evaluating whether conduct ostensibly compelled state entitled immunity requirements limited scope immunity private entities expand immunity protect conduct merely prompted state iii today abandons settled view private party entitled immunity unless state compelled act violation federal law hereafter state may exempt price fixing federal antitrust laws clearly articulates intention supplant competition regulation relevant market actively supervises unlawful conduct evaluating reasonableness prices charged justifies change law finding consistent principles federalism goal antitrust laws unfettered competition marketplace ante believe conclusions unsound deference state regulatory programs reliance today vague principles federalism obscures traditional disfavor implied exemptions sherman act authorized exemptions sherman act businesses regulated federal law exemption necessary order make regulatory act work even minimum extent necessary lesser showing repugnancy sufficient justify implied exemption based state regulatory program view separates exemption reason existence program involved parker case designed enhance market price raisins regulating output price words state policy one replaced price competition economic regulation price support programs like one involved parker possibly succeed every individual producer free participate participate program option parker challenged price fixing heart california support program agriculture without immunity sherman act state abandon project case common denominator regulatory programs motor carriers reservation power evaluate reasonableness proposed rates terms carriage programs state requires rates among competing carriers identical service uniform state requires either statute regulation express legislative administrative mandate rates proposed carriers formulated rate conferences supp nd state regulatory policies permissive rather mandatory necessary conflict antitrust laws regulatory systems regulated entity may comply edicts sovereign indeed almost meaningless contemplate regulatory policy gives every regulated entity carte blanche excuse consequences regulation even policy speeding enforced every motorist drive fast chose state declares regulated entity need follow regulatory procedure much admits element inconsequential ultimate success regulatory program noted act authorizes collective ratemaking interstate carriers circumstances doubts whether congress intended prevent adopting virtually identical policies intrastate level ante exemption however abolished rate requests extent still applies general rate requests rate bureaus must follow stringent procedural safeguards channel conduct useful informational tasks thereby diminish threat anticompetitive misconduct even sound policy reasons extending exemption amended state regulatory program contain comparable procedural safeguards hese considerations us congress body amend statute process judicial legislation wholly unjustifiable freight policy competition embraces defendants specious argument insofar encourages require rather merely permit anticompetitive conduct compulsion requirement may result greater restraints trade ante finds result inconsistent policies sherman act argument seriously flawed practical level argument assumes decision government today cause rush enactment legislation compelling price fixing motor carrier industry moreover argument assumes congress recently acted increase competition interstate motor carrier field remain silent face anticompetitive legislation intrastate level assumptions wholly speculative theoretical level ignores anticompetitive effect collective ratemaking practices challenged litigation appeals correctly observed ollective rate formulation clearly tampers price structure intrastate commodities rate bureau arrangement substitutes concerted pricing decisions among competing carriers influence impersonal market forces proposed rates unit increased rates transportation caused behavior especially grave basic industry like transportation ripple effects increased rates magnified raw materials semifinished finished goods transported various stages production distribution active supervision rate bureau process like provided motor carrier act might minimize anticompetitive effects collective ratemaking extent state regulatory commissions structured like icc pennsylvania railroad case however power reject rates proposed carriers rates fall outside zone reasonableness unless commissions actively supervise process eliminate upward pressure rates caused collusive ratemaking unfortunately nature active supervision carriers take part collective ratemaking fully disclosed record iv whether wise unwise policy federal government seek enforce sherman act case question authorized consider district appeals correctly applied established precedent holding government entitled injunction defendants price fixing price fixing unlawful unless expressly authorized statute required state regulatory program today authorizes collective ratemaking intrastate motor carriers even though state permitted program regulating reasonableness prices industry immunity type rejected underwriters pennsylvania railroad cases today shroud doctrine resurrected accordingly respectfully dissent every contract combination form trust otherwise conspiracy restraint trade commerce among several foreign nations declared illegal course public agencies like municipalities need establish anticompetitive conduct taken pursuant clearly articulated affirmatively expressed state policy hallie eau claire ante less stringent requirement reflects presumption municipality acts public interest ante cf affiliated capital city houston en banc higginbotham concurring cert pending oil see also goldfarb virginia state bar mckesson robbins paramount pictures constitution laws shall made pursuance thereof shall law land judges every state shall bound thereby thing constitution laws state contrary notwithstanding art vi cl national gerimedical hospital gerontology center blue cross kansas city national assn securities dealers group life health insurance royal drug abbott laboratories portland retail druggists keogh chicago northwestern suit one damages sherman act charge defendant carriers formed rate bureau committee secure agreement respect freight rates among constituent railroad companies otherwise competing carriers seen held damages recovered justice brandeis speaking unanimous stated conspiracy fix rates might illegal though rates fixed reasonable nondiscriminatory said rates fixed reasonable settled proceedings commission act combination carriers fix reasonable rates may illegal government may redress criminal proceedings injunction forfeiture settled freight association joint traffic association fact rates approved commission seems bar proceedings government georgia pennsylvania although pennsylvania railroad divided question whether georgia pursue antitrust remedy invoking original jurisdiction dissenting justices recognized obtain injunction alleged price fixing appropriate forum see stone dissenting course seeks relief case us parties agreement approved commission section persons hereby relieved operation antitrust laws respect making agreement respect carrying agreement conformity provisions conformity terms conditions prescribed commission stat current version exemption codified stat see cantor detroit edison blackmun concurring judgment proposition stated relied goldfarb virginia state bar continental union carbide parker brown union pacific northern securities several recent decisions applied parker analysis goldfarb virginia state bar concluded fee schedules enforced state bar association mandated ethical standards established state fee schedules therefore immune antitrust attack enough anticompetitive conduct prompted state action rather anticompetitive activities must compelled direction state acting sovereign cantor concluded midcal case state ostensible compulsion program alone sufficient confer immunity state neither set prices reviewed reasonableness monitor market conditions evaluate effectiveness program conditions state simply authorizes price setting enforces prices set private parties national policy favor competition thwarted casting gauzy cloak state involvement essentially private arrangement cantor detroit edison quoting silver new york stock exchange national assn securities dealers pointed mplied antitrust immunity favored justified convincing showing clear repugnancy antitrust laws regulatory system see philadelphia national bank borden see also nn supra cases course consistent cardinal rule applicable legislation generally repeals implication favored posadas national city bank california agricultural prorate act authorizes establishment action state officials programs marketing agricultural commodities produced state restrict competition among growers maintain prices distribution commodities packers declared purpose act conserve agricultural wealth state prevent economic waste marketing agricultural products state declared objective california act prevent excessive supplies agricultural commodities adversely affecting market although statute speaks terms economic stability agricultural waste rather price evident purpose effect regulation conserve agricultural wealth state raising maintaining prices without permitting unreasonable profits producers see code ann supp miss code ann stat code ann consolidating petitions rate modifications collective ratemaking arguably preserves resources state regulatory commissions promotes simplicity uniformity intrastate rate structure see app statutes governing state regulatory programs however carriers may time decline participate collective ratemaking deprive purported advantages ante difficult argue facets regulatory systems essential program success brief state iowa et al amici curiae authorization agreement collective ratemaking serves cognizable state interest also contend defendants provide valuable service motor carriers app district final judgment however interfered function defendant may provide statistical economic data advice carrier wishing avail defendants expertise see supra exemption amended ratemaking conferences among things must disclose names members affiliates members organization must limit discussion voting allowed subjects parties organization may file protest complaint commission tariff item published account motor carrier iii organization may permit one employees employee committee docket act upon proposal effecting change tariff item iv upon request organization must divulge person name proponent rule rate docketed must admit person meeting rates rules discussed voted upon must divulge person vote cast member carrier proposal organization organization shall make final disposition rate proposals within days vii see generally icc american trucking legislative history motor carrier act however congress suggested otherwise course hearings committee heard good deal criticism rate bureau process disadvantage system inherently tends result rates compensatory even least efficient motor carrier participating rate discussions happens consumers lose benefit price competition occur efficient carriers able offer attractive rates another serious problem closed nature rate bureau proceedings voting upon specific rate proposals done behind closed doors see also held often require elaboration price fixing contrary policy competition underlying sherman act illegality depend showing unreasonableness since conclusively presumed unreasonable mckesson robbins appeals however found state commissions scrutiny reasonableness proposed rates satisfies active supervision requirement unit en banc statutes implementing regulations indicate process collective ratemaking supervised limited basis see stat pub serv rule pub serv rule since reach ante address merits question see mine workers pennington eastern railroad presidents conference noerr motor freight