Community Communications Co., Inc. v. City of Boulder
United States Supreme Court
455 U.S. 40, 102 S. Ct. 835, 70 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1982)
- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Community Communications Co., Inc. (CCC) (plaintiff) was a cable-television provider with a 20-year permit to provide broadcasting services in the City of Boulder, Colorado (defendant). Due to geographic and technological limitations, CCC initially provided its services to just a segment of the Boulder area. Eventually, CCC announced that new advances allowed it to broadcast city-wide and sought a permit from Boulder to expand its reach. A second broadcasting company also requested a permit. Boulder’s city council issued an emergency ordinance prohibiting CCC from expanding its services for three months while Boulder worked to develop updated cable-broadcasting ordinances. Boulder expressed concern that allowing CCC, the incumbent, to proceed with its expansion immediately would discourage new competitors from entering the market. CCC sued, alleging that Boulder’s ordinance violated § 1 of the Sherman Act. Boulder argued that it had immunity from antitrust scrutiny under the state-action doctrine because Colorado’s constitution designated Boulder as a home-rule municipality, meaning Boulder had the right to exercise full self-government and that its ordinances superseded state law. The district court granted CCC’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which was reversed on appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.