Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association

United States Supreme Court
493 U.S. 411 (1990)


Facts

In the District of Columbia (the District), the difficult task of finding competent legal counsel for insolvent defendants led to the passage of the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act (CJA). The CJA authorized the District to appoint and compensate lawyers to represent insolvent defendants in criminal cases. Although over 1,200 lawyers registered as CJA lawyers, only around 100 CJA lawyers regularly accepted cases. After failing to secure a pay raise, the CJA lawyers voted at a meeting of the Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association (SCTLA) (defendant) to form a strike committee, which determined that a boycott against taking new clients was the only way to obtain the raise. The regular CJA lawyers met and agreed not to take any new cases after a specified date unless the pay-raise demands were met. The CJA lawyers also began reaching out to the media to help publicize the issue. After the boycott commenced, the District issued a pay raise to avoid a crisis. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (plaintiff) brought a complaint against SCTLA, alleging that the boycott was a per se antitrust violation of § 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The court of appeals vacated the FTC order, holding that the boycott contained an expressive component, involving a political message, that made application of the per se rule inappropriate under the First Amendment. The court of appeals concluded the expressive boycott was unlawful only if the boycotting group possessed significant market power. The FTC appealed, arguing that no market-power analysis was necessary and that a group boycott aimed at manipulating prices was per se unlawful.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Brennan, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.