Search Site
Menu
The Federal Antitrust Law Exemption for State Action

Federal antitrust laws are considered inapplicable to economic regulation by the States. In Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), the Supreme Court reasoned that in the “dual system of government” of the United States, any subtraction by Congress from the sovereign powers of the states must be explicitly stated. Nothing in the Sherman Act (the first federal antitrust law) or in the legislative history of the Sherman Act indicated a Congressional intent to subject state regulatory activities to the Sherman Act.

Federal antitrust laws, thus, are directed at private conduct generally rather than state conduct, and state action in effect is exempted from federal antitrust law. To the extent that anticompetitive conduct can be shown to be the result of state activity, federal antitrust laws will be considered inapplicable.

The state action doctrine has provided the basis for rulings that various types of conduct were permissible under federal antitrust laws due to state involvement. For example, bar association conduct regarding lawyers has been considered exempt state action due to the bar’s function in enforcing rules of the state’s Supreme Court. Awards of exclusive state contracts have been considered exempt from application of federal antitrust laws despite the anticompetitive effect of such awards.

The state action doctrine has limits. Thus, actions of a municipality may not be considered exempt from application of federal antitrust laws unless the actions can be tied to requirements or policies of the state or its agencies. Before anticompetitive actions of a municipality or other entity may be deemed exempt under the state action doctrine from federal antitrust law, it must be shown that the actions were taken pursuant to a clearly expressed state policy. For example, a general grant of home rule to a local government has been considered insufficient to shield the local government’s actions from application of federal antitrust law.

Specificity in a state’s policy to displace competition is required to shield activities from federal antitrust law under the state action doctrine. If there is such specificity, then even private anticompetitive activity may be permissible under the state action doctrine if it is shown that the activity was pursuant to a clearly announced state policy and was actively supervised by the state.

Copyright 2012 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.

Contact a Dedicated Texas Business Lawyer To Schedule a Consultation
Call 281-367-1222 or contact us online to schedule a meeting.

Strong In Action

  • Spring 2019

    The Strong Firm represents borrower in $42.3 million HUD construction loan for multifamily real estate development in Walton County, Florida.

    Read More
  • Spring 2019

    The Strong Firm acts as legal counsel for borrower in $32.1 million HUD construction loan for multifamily real estate development in Conroe, Texas.

    Read More
  • Spring 2019

    The Strong Firm aids borrower in $31.7 million HUD construction loan for multifamily real estate development in Nueces County, Texas.

    Read More
  • Spring 2019

    The Strong Firm represents borrower in the refinancing of a $3.57 million commercial mortgage-backed security for a commercial office facility in Montgomery County, Texas.

    Read More
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  • Peer Rated 2019 Award

Recent Blog Posts

A Win for Property Owners: New Texas Law Makes it Difficult for Forced Annexation

The State of Texas is a strong advocate for protecting property owners from the forced taking of land, including eminent domain, foreclosure or annexation. This year, the Texas Legislature enacted a bill that protects landowners for decades to come from forced annexation. In 1858, Texas passed the first statute allowing incorporation
Read More
A Win for Property Owners: New Texas Law Makes it Difficult for Forced Annexation

Wait… Lawyers Do That?

Since the founding of the Strong Firm P.C. in 2004, we have prided ourselves on not only providing excellent legal services, but also playing a large role in our community. Every year I have the opportunity to speak to area students from first grade through college grad students on legal-related
Read More
Wait… Lawyers Do That?

Part II – Probate: Identify the Most Efficient Probate Proceeding – Muniment of Title

Texas law provides several options to transfer ownership of a deceased person’s (usually called a “decedent”) property. We previously discussed the difference between a dependent and an independent administration. The dependent and independent administrations are used when the deceased person’s estate exceeds some minimal thresholds for size or complexity, such
Read More
Part II – Probate: Identify the Most Efficient Probate Proceeding – Muniment of Title

But You are My Attorney, not My Dentist…

Preventive maintenance for your entity from a legal perspective   “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” 'De Legibus' (c. 1240) by English Jurist Henry De Bracton   Potential Client:       “I have owned a limited liability company for several years. I haven’t had any issues, but someone is interested in investing
Read More
But You are My Attorney, not My Dentist…
  • Video Vault


    Watch videos done by our legal team to gain a better understanding of your legal needs. Our lawyers give video insight into areas such as Real Estate, Business Law, Mergers & Acquisitions and much more.

Pay Retainer Online

Use our easy-to-use and secure online payment feature.
We accept all major credit cards.

Pay Your Retainer

Contact us

Quick Contact Form