{"id":4126,"date":"2004-12-08T18:58:56","date_gmt":"2004-12-08T22:58:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/12\/08\/baseballs-antitrust-exemption"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:58:09","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:58:09","slug":"baseballs-antitrust-exemption-intestate-commerce-stare-decisis-on-s","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/12\/08\/baseballs-antitrust-exemption-intestate-commerce-stare-decisis-on-s\/","title":{"rendered":"baseball’s antitrust exemption: intestate commerce (stare decisis on steroids?)"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Federal Club v. National League<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM> is the disinherited child of interstate commerce law.  In a decision <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Supreme Court decided in 1922 that baseball is not<\/EM> commerce <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and the antitrust laws did not apply.  Although interstate commerce doctrine has changed mightily <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
since then, and all other sports have been brought under the interstate commerce umbrella, baseball <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
still has its antitrust exemption, due to the application of  the principle of <\/FONT>stare decisis<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> [“let what is <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
decided stand”] in Flood v. Kuhn<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A><\/FONT> in 1972.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                                                                                                                  \"at  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
The interest in Congress over the use of steriods by baseball players has renewed the issue.  Two days <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
ago,   <\/FONT><\/FONT>I <\/FONT>asked<\/FONT><\/A> if any<\/FONT> one knew the current status of baseball under the Commerce Clause.  Today, Greg <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
at <\/FONT>Sports Law Blog<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT>has strongly <\/FONT>reiterated<\/FONT><\/A> his belief that baseball is interstate commerce, disagreeing with <\/FONT>Fed84<\/FONT><\/A>.  Besides <\/FONT>all the factual and doctrinal reasons that support this conclusion, Greg points to one <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
sentence in <\/FONT>Flood v. Kuhn<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM> , the assertion that:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n