Law Commons^™

Federalism, Free Competition, And Sherman Act Preemption Of State Restraints, Alan J. Meese

Faculty Publications

The Sherman Act establishes free competition as the rule governing interstate trade. Banning private restraints cannot ensure that competitive markets allocate the nation's resources. State laws can pose identical threats to free markets, posing an obstacle to achieving Congress's goal to protect free competition.

The Sherman Act would thus override anticompetitive state laws under ordinary preemption standards. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court rejected such preemption in Parker v. Brown, creating the "state action doctrine." Parker and its progeny hold that state-imposed restraints are immune from Sherman Act preemption, even if they impose significant harm on out-of-state consumers. Parker's progeny …

Federalism, Congress, The States And The Tenth Amendment: Adrift In The Cellophane Sea, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Publications

Like Gaul, this essay is divided into three parts. The first two parts are adapted from a public address delivered at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, as part of its Bicentennial series, in 1987. The third part was added later, originally as an Addendum Note. The general subject was introduced by the moderator, Mr. Robert MacCrate, President of the Amerian Bar Association, who put the following question: "Where does the federalism of the Constitution stand today?" Professor Martha Field of the Harvard Law School presented a paper in first response. This paper then followed, …

The Second Death Of Federalism, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Publications

In 1976, in National League of Cities v. Usery, the Supreme Court distinguished acts of Congress regulating commercial relations from acts of Congress commanding the terms of state services. Last Term, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Court abandoned the distinction and held that it was principally for Congress to determine federalism questions. In this Comment, Professor Van Alstyne criticizes the Court on both counts.