DOCSLIB.ORG

Judicial Review As Midcal Active Supervision: Immunizing Private Parties from Antitrust Liability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judicial Review As Midcal Active Supervision: Immunizing Private Parties from Antitrust Liability Fordham Law Review Volume 57 Issue 3 Article 3 1988 Judicial Review as Midcal Active Supervision: Immunizing Private Parties from Antitrust Liability Michal Dlouhy Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michal Dlouhy, Judicial Review as Midcal Active Supervision: Immunizing Private Parties from Antitrust Liability, 57 Fordham L. Rev. 403 (1988). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol57/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES JUDICIAL REVIEW AS MIDCAL ACTIVE SUPERVISION: IMMUNIZING PRIVATE PARTIES FROM ANTITRUST LIABILITY INTRODUCTION The Parker v. Brown' state action doctrine2 may immunize3 a private party4 from liability under federal antitrust laws.5 Private conduct is im- mune, however, only when it satisfies the two-pronged test developed in CaliforniaRetail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.6 The challenged conduct must be pursuant to a "clearly articulated and affirm- atively expressed" state policy, and it must be " 'actively supervised' by 1. 317 U.S. 341 (1943) (immunizing actions of a raisin cartel from liability under the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209 (1890) (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 (1982 & Supp. IV 1986))). 2. The Parker state action doctrine provides that the Sherman Act was not intended to restrain state action or official action directed by a state. See 1 P. Areeda & D. Turner, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application $ 212a, at 68 (1978); infra notes 17-18 and accompanying text. For the first fifty-three years after the enactment of the Sherman Act in 1890, litigants and courts virtually ignored the potential conflict between the antitrust laws and the anticompetitive actions of state actors. See Wiley, A Capture Theory ofAntitrust Federal- i rm, 99 Harv.L. Rev. 713, 714 (1986). In 1943, the Court created the state action immu- nity doctrine in Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943). However, it was not until Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975), that the Parker doctrine became controversial. Most of its substantive development has taken place in cases decided after 1975. See infra note 25 and accompanying text. 3. The state action doctrine is not a true "exemption" or "immunity" from the fed- eral antitrust laws; rather, it identifies conduct not subject to those laws. The terms ex- emption and immunity are used for the sake of convenience. See Fuchs v. Rural Elec. Convenience Coop., 1988-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) f 68,247, at 59,537 n.1 (7th Cir. 1988); see also infra note 19. 4. The scope of this Note is limited to the Parker doctrine's application to private parties. While Parkerv. Brown only immunized the actions of the state itself, the Court subsequently recognized that state action immunity could also apply in a suit against a private party. See Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 471 U.S. 48, 56-57 (1985). Parkerv. Brown was "premised on the assumption that Congress, in enacting the Sher- man Act, did not intend to compromise the States' ability to regulate their domestic commerce." Id. at 56. Regulating commerce in today's complex economy necessitates some delegation of state authority to private actors. If Parker immunity were limited to the actions of public officials, this assumed congressional purpose would be frustrated, for a state would be unable to use delegation to implement needed regulatory programs. See id. at 56. For a discussion of the private/non-private bifurcation in the Parker doctrine case law, see infra note 40. 5. Courts have generally assumed that the Parker doctrine applies to other federal antitrust laws in addition to the Sherman Act. See Note, Parker v. Brown Revisited: The State Action Doctrine after Goldfarb, Cantor, and Bates, 77 Colum. L. Rev. 898, 898 n.4 (1977). 6. 445 U.S. 97 (1980); see infra notes 43-47 and accompanying text. FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. 57 the State itself."' 7 State agency review of private anticompetitive conduct typically satisfies the second-"active supervision"-prong of the Midcal test.8 This Note examines an issue specifically left open by the Supreme Court:9 whether judicial review by state courts should likewise satisfy the active supervision requirement. Part I of this Note examines Parker v. Brown's foundations"0 and dis- cusses the conflicting policy views concerning what the Parker doctrine should be used to accomplish." Part II describes how recent applica- tions of the Midcal test indicate a return to the deferential view of Parker immunity, 2 and analyzes the constitutional and economic effects of a rigorous application of the Midcal requirements.I3 Part III of this Note examines whether judicial review, as opposed to agency review, satisfies the requirements of active state supervision. 4 This Note argues that state court supervision of state policy may be as "active" as is necessary for state action immunity, 5 and concludes that the better approach would allow judicial review as active supervision to 7. California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97, 105 (1980) (citing City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U.S. 389, 410 (1978)). 8. See, e.g., Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 471 U.S. 48, 62 (1985). Review by a state supreme court acting in a legislative capacity, and review by the executive branch, should also satisfy the Midcal active supervision require- ment. See Jorde, Antitrust and the New State Action Doctrine: A Return to Deferential Economic Federalism, 75 Calif. L. Rev. 227, 240 (1987); Lopatka, The State of "State Action Antitrust Immunity: A Progress Report, 46 La. L. Rev. 941, 1038 (1986). 9. See Patrick v. Burget, 108 S.Ct. 1658, 1664-65 (1988). Only a few months later the 11th Circuit concluded that judicial review may constitute active state supervision for purposes of state action immunity. See Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 851 F.2d 1273, 1282 (11th Cir.), vacated, 861 F.2d 1233 (1988) (en banc). 10. The language in Parkerv. Brown accepts federalism as the basis of the state action immunity: We find nothing in the language of the Sherman Act or in its history which suggests that its purpose was to restrain a state or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislature. In a dual system of government in which, under the Constitution, the states are sovereign, save only as Congress may constitutionally subtract from their authority, an unexpressed purpose to nullify a state's control over its officers and agents is not lightly to be attributed to Congress. The Sherman Act makes no mention of the state as such, and gives no hint that it was intended to restrain state action or official action directed by a state. Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 350-51 (1943); see infra note 21. 11. The critical analyses of the Parker doctrine can roughly be grouped into two views-the revisionist and the deferential-depending on each author's view of what the federal antitrust laws should be used to accomplish. See infra notes 30-42 and accompa- nying text. 12. See infra note 43 and accompanying text. 13. See infra notes 48-75 and accompanying text. 14. See infra notes 76-100 and accompanying text. Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 851 F.2d 1273 (11th Cir.), vacated, 861 F.2d 1233 (1988) (en banc), concluded that there is no principled basis for distinguishing judicial review from agency review. See id. at 1282. 15. See infra notes 101-115 and accompanying text. 1988] MIDCAL A CTIVE SUPER VISION immunize private parties from antitrust liability. 16 I. THE PARKER STATE ACTION IMMUNITY DOCTRINE A. Foundations The Parkerdoctrine was conceived to protect state action from federal antitrust liability.1 7 The Court in Parker v. Brown found that the Sher- man Act was intended to suppress the "business combinations" of pri- vate individuals, and not "to restrain a state or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislature."'" There are, however, two opposing views on why the Parker immu- nity19 doctrine was originally conceived.20 One view is that Parker v. 16. Although this Note focuses, at times, on the peer review context developed in two recent cases, Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 851 F.2d 1273 (11th Cir.), vacated, 861 F.2d 1233 (1988) (en banc), and Patrick v. Burget, 800 F.2d 1498 (9th Cir. 1986), reversed, 108 S. Ct. 1658 (1988), its scope is not intended to be thereby limited. Judicial review could satisfy Midcal active supervision with respect to all private party delegates of state power. 17. See P. Areeda & D. Turner, supra note 2, 212a, at 68. 18. Id. (citing Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 350-51 (1943)). 19. Inconsistent use of the terms "immunity," "exemption" and "preemption" results in a certain degree of confusion in the Parker doctrine case law and literature. See Han- dler, Antitrust-1978, 78 Colum. L. Rev. 1363, 1378-83 (1978). "Immunity" is perhaps the best word to express the concept behind the Parker doc- trine. Immunity is an internal concept; it concerns only one law. An action is immune from liability under a federal law when the law, as drafted, was not meant to apply.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Building a Conceptual Theory of Anti-Competition Laws in Public-Private Partnerships
    Building a conceptual theory of anti-competition laws in public-private partnerships By Joshua Edgar B.A., Kansas State University, 2017 A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS Department of Political Science College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2021 Approved by: Major Professor Dr. Brianne Heidbreder COPYRIGHT ©Joshua Edgar 2021 Abstract The growing economic presence of public-private partnerships in the market has led to an increased monopolization and subsequent reduction in competition in sectors such as infrastructure, utilities, and health services. Much of this can be contributed to the principal- agent problems that arise between the government and its constituents. Previous research has demonstrated the strain that anti-competitive practices place on the market, but little research on competition has been directed towards understanding how the active participation of public sector actors affect competition when in league with their private sector counterparts. Using data from public-private infrastructure projects in the United States, a monte carlo test on public-private infrastructure expenditures, the data of which is then set into a cooperative game-theory to determine changes in the public actor’s preferential outcome in the presence of increased risk. This quantitative analysis is then placed within a conceptual framework which demonstrates that many of the principal-agent problems can be overcome by the inclusion of anti-completion regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Public-Private Divide in Parker State-Action Immunity Sina Safvati
    Public-Private Divide in Parker State-Action Immunity EVIEW R Sina Safvati ABSTRACT LA LAW LA LAW C The U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on Parker state-action immunity from federal U antitrust laws has remained largely muddled since its inception. The Court recently attempted to bring clarity to the doctrine in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, holding that state occupational licensing boards with a controlling number of active market participants are subject to the same active supervision requirement as private actors performing state governmental functions. Given that most state licensing boards are comprised of active market participants in the industry they are charged with regulating, state licensing boards can no longer assume they are immune from antitrust suits. In response, states have been scrambling to reassess the composition and oversight of their regulatory bodies in order to reduce antitrust liability for board members. In addition, litigants are bringing more claims against these boards for alleged antitrust violations. Lower courts are left with the task of determining whether these boards are closer to private actors or to prototypical state agencies. For those boards classified as private, lower courts are left with the task of determining whether the regulatory regimes overseeing the boards’ anticompetitive conduct satisfy the active supervision requirement. In light of these rapid developments, however, doctrinal confusion about Parker immunity persists. This confusion largely stems from the Court’s failure to formally adopt a rule of decision incorporating the two bedrock principles that have explained Parker immunity doctrine since its inception: financial disinterest and political accountability.
    [Show full text]
  • Plain Ambiguities in the Clear Articulation Requirement for State Action Antitrust Immunity: the Ac Se of State Agencies C Douglas Floyd
    Boston College Law Review Volume 41 Article 2 Issue 5 Number 5 9-1-2000 Plain Ambiguities in the Clear Articulation Requirement for State Action Antitrust Immunity: The aC se of State Agencies C Douglas Floyd Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons Recommended Citation C D. Floyd, Plain Ambiguities in the Clear Articulation Requirement for State Action Antitrust Immunity: The Case of State Agencies, 41 B.C.L. Rev. 1059 (2000), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol41/iss5/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PLAIN AMBIGUITIES IN THE CLEAR ARTICULATION REQUIREMENT FOR STATE. ACTION ANTITRUST IMMUNITY: THE CASE OF STATE AGENCIES C. DOUGLAS FLOYD* Abstract: This Article focuses on the application of the state action antitrust inimunity doctrine of Parker v. Brown to the regulatory programs of state administrative agencies having statewide jurisdiction. It concludes that state agencies should be subject to significantly different requirements for antitrust immunity than are local governmental units. This Article also addresses unresolved issues that frequently recur in the context of state administrative action, such as the effect of retroactive intetpretations of state policy by a state agency, whether the clear articulation and active supervision requirements for antitrust immunity play any separate role in the context of administrative policy making, and whether any distinctions should be drawn among the processes of rulemaking, adjudication, and tariff approval in applying the Parker doctrine.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust Act Report Full
    Appendix A. Antitrust Timeline [00.16.3] [08.14] [01.1] [01.3] [02.1] [02.1] [01.6] [02.2] [02.1] [01.7] [01.8] [01.9] [08.8] [01.10] [08.3] [01.15] [01.11] [08.9] [01.12] [08.11] [01.13] [02.1] [02.1] [08.20] [01.14] [02.1] [08.15] [08.20] [02.1] [08.17] [08.21] [08.1] [02.1] [08.21] [08.1] [08.21] [08.5] [08.7] [08.16] [08.4] [08.10] [08.13] [08.19] [08.12] [08.18] Appendix B. Case Annotations For more comprehensive summaries and additional case summaries, please visit the research database accompanying this report at: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/0B- Sc0KR7f1Flflpub09BUmtoNWJzTzhrbGV0YlFJSVJzdkE3RmNWNmFiSm5MVV9tOFFiT2s In chronological order: United States v E.C. Knight Co (1895), 156 US 1 The United States claimed that, in order for the American Sugar Refining Company to obtain complete control of the price of sugar in the United States, that the company, and John E. Searles, Jr., acting for it, entered into an unlawful and fraudulent scheme to purchase the stock, machinery, and real estate of the other four corporations defendant for the purpose of restraining interstate trade. It was found that on or about March 4, 1892, Searles entered into contracts with the defendant Knight Company, the Spreckels Company, the Franklin Company and with the Delaware Sugar House [p3]. The argument is that the power to control the manufacturing of refined sugar is a monopoly over a necessary of life, to the enjoyment of which by a large part of the population of the United States interstate commerce is indispensable, and that, therefore, the general government, in the exercise of the power to regulate commerce, may repress such monopoly directly, and set aside the instruments which have created it [p12].
    [Show full text]
  • State Action Antitrust Exemption Collides with Deregulation: Rehabilitating the Foreseeability Doctrine
    Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 1-2006 State Action Antitrust Exemption Collides with Deregulation: Rehabilitating the Foreseeability Doctrine Elizabeth Trujillo Texas A&M University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, and the Law and Economics Commons Recommended Citation Elizabeth Trujillo, State Action Antitrust Exemption Collides with Deregulation: Rehabilitating the Foreseeability Doctrine, 11 Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L. 349 (2006). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/796 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STATE ACTION ANTITRUST EXEMPTION COLLIDES WITH DEREGULATION: REHABILITATING THE FORESEEABILITY DOCTRINE Elizabeth Trujillo* INTRODUCTION A capitalist society with policies established to "regulate" the promotion of competition in traditionally regulated industries such as the electrical market seems counterintuitive. Yet, it is a reality in the United States. In particular, traditionally rate-regulated industries, such as electricity, have been "deregulated." In this context, deregulation means opening up certain components of the industry to competition. However, regulatory mechanisms in place to prevent abuses of the competitive process are also driving this competition, resulting in a "regulated deregulation." 1 Specifically, recent initiatives to "deregulate" the electricity markets have highlighted that free markets thrive where competitive * Visiting Professor, Florida State University College of Law, 2005-2006; Assistant Professor of Law, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust and Democracy: a Case Study from German Fascism
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Law & Economics Working Papers 4-17-2018 Antitrust and Democracy: A Case Study from German Fascism Daniel A. Crane University of Michigan - Ann Arbor, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current Part of the Law and Economics Commons Working Paper Citation Crane, Daniel A., "Antitrust and Democracy: A Case Study from German Fascism" (2018). Law & Economics Working Papers. 155. https://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/155 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law & Economics Working Papers by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Crane: ANTITRUST AND DEMOCRACY: A CASE STUDY FROM GERMAN FASCISM Daniel A. Crane† Nearly forty years ago, Bob Pitofsky wrote, in his classic article The Political Content of Antitrust, that it is “bad history, bad policy, and bad law to exclude certain political values in interpreting the antitrust laws.”1 Pitofsky argued that pervasive monopoly threatened democratic values in three ways: “[F]irst, . excessive concentration of economic power will breed antidemocratic political pressures . [S]econd, . individual and business freedom [can be enhanced] by reducing the range within which private discretion by a few in the economic
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust Act Report Full
    The Sherman Antitrust Act and the Profession of Architecture Peggy Deamer May, 2016 Index I. Introduction II. Antitrust Laws: Histories A. General B. The Professions C. Architecture III. Antitrust Laws: Concepts Consent Decrees, Codes of Ethics, and the Learned Profession IV. Probes A. The Learned Profession Exemption B. The State Exemption C. The Differing Professions D. The Political Nature of Antitrust Rulings V. Legal Forms of Moderating Fees and Wages and Modifying Competition A. 3rd Party Surveys B. Legislation C. Unions VI. Conclusion VII. Appendix A. Antitrust Timeline B. Case Annotations C. AIA Consent Decree 1972 (with letter) D. AIA Consent Decree 1990 E. AIA Statement of Services & Charges of the Architect (1960) F. 2002 AIA Antitrust Compliance Guidelines G. Glossary of Antitrust Terms H. Bibliography I. Introduction This is a report on how antitrust laws have affected the architectural profession. This research was motivated by the thought that the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the profession of architecture in general have been more negatively affected by antitrust law than the other professions. It seemed that large law firms, for example, agree on a certain salary for associates, ostensibly wage collusion under antitrust law; and realtors seemed to have an “understood” 6% fee structure, ostensibly fee collusion.1 Was it the case that the two antitrust proceedings against the AIA in 1972 and 1990 - which penalized the AIA for inhibiting competition among member architects - had made the profession more conservative with regard to discussion of fees and wages than had other proceedings affecting other professions? Having learned from Robert Ivy, CEO of AIA National, that these consent decrees were the reason that the AIA could not be more aggressive in advocating for higher architectural fees, this was a pertinent question.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Competition Ordinance Result in Consumer Protection
    Does Competition Ordinance Result In Consumer Protection By Qaiser Javed Mian (Director Research/Faculty member Punjab Judicial Academy) There can be “prohibited” anti-competitive behaviour and there can be “permitted” anti-competitive behaviour. In U.SA, what is called Anti-Trust Law, in other Countries, it is called Competition Law and/or Anti-Monopoly Law 1 and/or Consumer Protection Law. According to Philip Areeda, U.S. Anti-Trust Law, “…contains a basic distinction between concerted and “independent” 2 action” , which in other words refers to distinction between “single – firm” and “multi-firm” conduct in the context of “encouraging competition”, and save the “businesses” and/or “consumers”. Antitrust law seeks fair competition on the belief that “free trade” benefits not only the consumer, but also the economy and business. The restraints imposed by this law can be divided into four categories: (i) agreements between competitors (ii) contractual arrangements between sellers and buyers (iii) creating and maintaining of monopoly power, and (iv) mergers. While U.S.A has “The Sherman Antitrust Act” (1890)” named for Senator Johan Sherman as a first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to “regulate interstate commerce” as well, Clayton Act, 1914) and “Robinson Patman Act (1936)”, Pakistan had “Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices (Control And Prevention) Ordinance, (V of 1970)”, Competition Ordinance (LII of 2007)” as amended from time to time and “The Punjab Consumer Protection Act (Pb. Act II of 2005)” while the other Provinces have not yet started applying Consumer Protection Law. India promulgated “The Consumer Protection Act, 1986” and Rules 1987 which includes “goods” as well as “services”.
    [Show full text]
  • Cartels & Leniency 2019
    ICLG The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Cartels & Leniency 2019 12th Edition A practical cross-border insight into cartels and leniency Published by Global Legal Group, with contributions from: AGON PARTNERS King & Wood Mallesons AKD Mamo TCV Advocates Aramis MinterEllisonRuddWatts Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP ML Abogados Bán, S. Szabó & Partners Morais Leitão, Galvão Teles, Soares da Silva & Borenius Attorneys Ltd Associados, R. L. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu Crowell & Moring Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Preslmayr Rechtsanwälte OG Debarliev Dameski & Kelesoska, Attorneys at Law Rahmat Lim & Partners Drew & Napier LLC Shearman & Sterling LLP ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Hannes Snellman Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Cartels & Leniency 2019 General Chapters: 1 Cartel Updates: Recent Trends in Fine Calculations and Cartel Liability – Elvira Aliende Rodriguez & Geert Goeteyn, Shearman & Sterling LLP 1 2 The Proposed Whistleblowers Directive – Ingrid Vandenborre & Thorsten Goetz, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP 6 Contributing Editors 3 Navigating the Tensions Between Leniency Cooperation and the Risk of Private Follow-On Geert Goeteyn, Matthew Damage Claims in Cartel Cases – Niels Ersbøll & Jane Wessel, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 12 Readings & Elvira Aliende Rodriguez, Shearman & 4 Disincentives to Leniency: Expect Fewer Golden Eggs if You Harass the Goose – Frédéric Louis, Sterling LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 18 Sales Director Florjan Osmani Country Question and Answer Chapters: Account Director 5 Australia King & Wood Mallesons: Sharon Henrick & Wayne Leach 23 Oliver Smith Sales Support Manager 6 Austria Preslmayr Rechtsanwälte OG: Dieter Hauck 33 Toni Hayward 7 Belgium Crowell & Moring: Thomas De Meese 40 Sub Editor Oliver Chang 8 Canada Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP: W.
    [Show full text]
  • Foxes at the Henhouse: Occupational Licensing Boards up Close Rebecca Haw Allensworth
    Vanderbilt University Law School Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2017 Foxes at the Henhouse: Occupational Licensing Boards Up Close Rebecca Haw Allensworth Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, and the Commercial Law Commons Recommended Citation Rebecca Haw Allensworth, Foxes at the Henhouse: Occupational Licensing Boards Up Close, 105 California Law Review. 1567 (2017) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,1 2 1/,1( Citation: Rebecca Haw Allensworth, Foxes at the Henhouse: Occupational Licensing Boards up Close, 105 Cal. L. Rev. 1567 (2017) Provided by: Vanderbilt University Law School Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Mon Feb 5 15:44:56 2018 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information
    [Show full text]
  • 1-Allensworth-34.Pdf
    California Law Review VOL. 105 DECEMBER 2017 NO. 6 Copyright © 2017 by California Law Review, Inc., a California Nonprofit Corporation Foxes at the Henhouse: Occupational Licensing Boards Up Close Rebecca Haw Allensworth* The dark side of occupational licensing—its tendency to raise prices to consumers with dubious effects on service quality, its enormous payout to licensees, and its ability to shut many willing workers out of the workforce—has begun to receive significant attention. But little has been said about the legal institutions that create and administer this web of professional entry and practice rules. State-level licensing boards regulate nearly one-third of American workers, yet, until now, there has been no systematic attempt to understand who serves on these boards and how they operate. This Article undertakes an ambitious and comprehensive study of all 1,790 licensing boards in the U.S. and identifies their statutory membership. The results are clear: nearly all of them are controlled by professionals holding a license issued by the board itself. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15779/Z38CJ87K75 Copyright © 2017 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications. * Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School; J.D., Harvard Law School; M.Phil, University of Cambridge; B.A., Yale University. Thank you to Lora Chowdhury, Laura Dolbow, Demetrios Festa, Francesco Forin, Janelle Grigaitis, Michael Moore, Stephanie Onyekwere, Jason Palmer, and Carolyn Webb for excellent research assistance. Thank you to Andrea Alexander for managing the empirical project, and to Francesco Forin for extensive help with citations and editing.
    [Show full text]
  • Sanders Brown Opinion
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT � STEVE SANDERS, Individually and as Class Representative, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDMUND G. BROWN Jr.,* in his No. 05-15676 official capacity as Attorney � D.C. No. General of the State of California; CV-04-02281-SI PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; R.J. OPINION REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY; BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP.; LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees. � Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Yvonne Illston, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 15, 2007—Stanford, California Filed September 26, 2007 Before: Betty B. Fletcher, Richard R. Clifton, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Clifton *Edmund G. Brown Jr. is substituted for his predecessor, Bill Lockyer, as Attorney General of the State of California, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). 13205 13208 SANDERS v. BROWN COUNSEL A. William Urquhart, Thad A. Davis, Kent J. Bullard, Kath­ leen M. Sullivan (argued), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Los Angeles and Redwood Shores, California; for the appellant. Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr., Chief Assistant Attorney General Tom Greene, Senior Assistant Attorney General Dennis Eckhart, Deputy Attorney General Margaret SANDERS v. BROWN 13209 Spencer, Deputy Attorney General Karen Leaf (argued), State of California, Sacramento, California; Darryl Snider (argued), James F. Speyer, Eric Shapland, Heller Ehrman LLP, Los Angeles, California; for the appellees. OPINION CLIFTON, Circuit Judge: This case involves an indirect legal challenge to the mas­ sive settlement agreement between the nation’s largest tobacco companies and the attorneys general of 46 states and several territories.
    [Show full text]