DEFENSE · 15usc1:state-action-immunity
Under Parker v. Brown (317 U.S. 341 (1943)) and California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. (445 U.S. 97 (1980)), state-action immunity shields non-sovereign/private actors only when (1) the challenged restraint is clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy, and (2) the policy is actively supervised by the State itself (and hybrid state-mandated pricing rules that compel private per se conduct without active supervision are preempted, 324 Liquor / Schwegmann / Connecticut Fine Wine).
Exact element source
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracySource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1; Unicode character offsets [57:133] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c248965c2c712de1e3f3d52a17be4c90dfdcac5d3f9fea0b7220b164e2c2973.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| private-parties/trade-association-members-claiming-parker-lgaa-noerr | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 — not |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 | Parker v. Brown state-action immunity (Midcal two-prong test: clearly articulated state policy + active state supervision) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: the casino defendants; subject: party=the casino defendants One-sentence affirmance by reference; three distinct immunities (Local Government Antitrust Act, Parker, Noerr-Pennington) are lumped together with no reasoning in this opinion. | private-parties/trade-association-members-claiming-parker-lgaa-noerr | The court rejected the other defendants’ claims that they were entitled to immunity from plaintiffs’ antitrust claims under the LGAA, the Parker doctrine, and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [5963:6152] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.Finally, we reject the casinos’ immunity claims for essentially the reasons stated in the district court's November 24, 2004 order.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [32809:32940] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Then, the court inquired whether the challenged provision brought about facially, or per se , unlawful restraints on trade, in which case they are preempted, or restraints that are subject to rule of reason scrutiny, in which case they are not.
Then, the court inquired whether the challenged provision brought about facially, or per se , unlawful restraints on trade, in which case they are preempted, or restraints that are subject to rule of reason scrutiny, in which case they are not.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0160-01; Unicode character offsets [11677:11921] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cd0e367f5845bbda844f06ccfcc8c7200ee4c47266959fc0c10dd9bf088d2fd2.Under Parker v. Brown (317 U.S. 341 (1943)) and California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. (445 U.S. 97 (1980)), state-action immunity shields non-sovereign/private actors only when (1) the challenged restraint is clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy, and (2) the policy is actively supervised by the State itself (and hybrid state-mandated pricing rules that compel private per se conduct without active supervision are preempted, 324 Liquor / Schwegmann / Connecticut Fine Wine).