Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States
20 S. Ct. 96, 175 US 211, 1899 U.S. LEXIS 1559 (1899)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause extends to prohibiting private contracts between individuals or corporations whose direct and immediate effect is to restrain that commerce.
Facts:
- A group of manufacturers and vendors of cast-iron pipe, including Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., formed an association.
- The members of this association produced the vast majority of cast-iron pipe available in a large, multi-state geographic area they designated as "pay territory."
- The agreement established a scheme to eliminate competition among members for contracts to supply pipe within this territory.
- For many contracts, members held a secret 'auction pool,' where the member who agreed to pay the largest 'bonus' to the association would win the right to submit the lowest bid for a public contract.
- The other members of the association would then submit intentionally higher, non-competitive bids to ensure the designated member won the contract.
- This practice allowed the association to control the price of pipe sold and delivered across state lines, keeping it significantly above what it would have been under conditions of free competition.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a petition against Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. and other pipe manufacturers in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (a federal trial court).
- The government alleged that the defendants' association was a combination in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
- The Circuit Court dismissed the petition.
- The United States, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, finding the combination was an illegal restraint of trade.
- The defendants, Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. et al., as appellants, appealed the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private agreement among competing manufacturers to fix prices and allocate territories for goods sold and delivered across state lines constitute a direct restraint on interstate commerce that Congress may prohibit under its Commerce Clause power?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Peckham
Yes, a private agreement among competing manufacturers to fix prices and allocate territories for goods sold across state lines is a direct restraint on interstate commerce that Congress may prohibit. The constitutional grant of power to Congress to regulate commerce is complete and is not limited to preventing interference by state legislation; it also includes the power to prohibit private contracts that directly and substantially regulate interstate commerce. The liberty of contract guaranteed by the Constitution is not absolute and does not include the right to enter into agreements that violate a valid act of Congress. Unlike the combination in United States v. E.C. Knight Co., which related only to the manufacture of goods, this agreement directly governs the terms of sale and delivery of goods in interstate commerce. The direct and immediate result of the combination was a restraint upon the purchase, sale, and transportation of articles of interstate commerce. The reasonableness of the prices charged is not a valid defense, as the tendency of the agreement to give the parties the power to charge unreasonable prices is sufficient to render it an illegal restraint of trade.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the Sherman Antitrust Act after it had been weakened by the Court's ruling in U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co. It established that the federal government's power under the Commerce Clause extends to private conspiracies that directly restrain the interstate sale and distribution of goods, not just manufacturing. The Court's focus on the agreement's 'direct effect' on commerce provided a critical analytical framework for future antitrust cases. This ruling empowered federal regulators to prosecute price-fixing and market-allocation schemes, fundamentally shaping the course of American antitrust law and affirming Congress's authority over national markets.
Unlock the full brief for Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States