Take Two: Stare Decisis in Antitrust - The Per Se Rule Against Horizontal Price-Fixing
22 Pages Posted: 28 Mar 2008
Date Written: March 2008
Abstract
In this essay prepared for the American Bar Association's 56th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, I consider two issues that pertain to the overall question of what antitrust doctrines are up for retirement. First, we can't consider that without understanding how the Supreme Court approaches stare decisis in antitrust. The Court's 5-4 decision in Leegin identified some of the fault lines on this issue. The Court has suggested that it should approach stare decisis differently in statutory areas from the way it approaches it when it reconsiders constitutional decisions. I think that that is wrong and that the Court should apply its approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases to cases based on statutes, such as the Sherman Act. Second, I focus on the evil of evils: horizontal price-fixing. I don't think that the Court is likely to retire the per se rule against horizontal price-fixing, certainly not directly. We might only realize that it had been overturned after the fact, after the Court had so chipped away at the doctrine that nothing remained. That said, as again Leegin itself suggested, we can't be fully confident that horizontal price-fixing is always pernicious, especially when it might be implemented as part of a larger vertical arrangement.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Pleading Standards after Bell Atlantic v. Twombly
By Scott Dodson
-
Free Riding: An Overstated, and Unconvincing, Explanation for Resale Price Maintenance
By Marina Lao
-
The Roberts Court and the Chicago School of Antitrust: The 2006 Term and Beyond
-
The Proper Role of Courts: The Mistakes of the Supreme Court in Leegin
-
The Roberts Court after Two Years: Antitrust, Intellectual Property Rights, and Competition Policy
-
Rights and Remedies Post Ebay v. Mercexchange - Deep Waters Stirred