Associated Press v. United States
326 U.S. 1, 65 S.Ct. 1416, 89 L.Ed. 2013 (1945)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cooperative news-gathering association whose by-laws allow existing members to block competitors from membership and prohibit all members from selling news to non-members engages in a combination in restraint of trade that violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press does not provide immunity from general business regulations like antitrust laws.
Facts:
- The Associated Press (AP) is a cooperative news-gathering association composed of over 1,200 member newspapers.
- AP's by-laws prohibited all member newspapers from selling their 'spontaneous' news to any non-member organizations.
- The by-laws also granted any existing member the power to block a competing newspaper in its same market from joining the AP.
- To overcome an existing member's objection, a competing applicant was required to pay a substantial fee to the association and gain a majority vote from all AP members.
- The combined effect of these by-laws made it difficult for newspapers that were not AP members to buy news from either AP itself or any of its 1,200+ members.
- AP also maintained an exclusive agreement with the Canadian Press, a Canadian news agency, to furnish news only to each other.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a civil action in the Federal District Court against the Associated Press, alleging violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
- The government moved for summary judgment.
- The three-judge District Court granted the government's motion in part, finding that the AP's membership by-laws unlawfully restrained trade.
- The District Court enjoined the AP from enforcing the restrictive membership by-laws.
- Both the Associated Press (as appellant) and the United States (as appellant on other grounds) filed direct appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the by-laws of the Associated Press, which restrict membership for competing newspapers and prohibit members from selling news to non-members, constitute a combination in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Black
Yes. The by-laws of the Associated Press constitute a combination in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The Act was intended to prohibit independent businesses from forming a common plan that reduces a competitor's opportunity to buy or sell. The AP's by-laws, which restrict the sale of news to non-members and create barriers to membership for competitors, are precisely such a plan. The fact that AP has not achieved a complete monopoly is irrelevant, as the Act condemns combinations that tend to restrain trade. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press does not immunize newspapers from antitrust laws; rather, it supports applying the Act to ensure the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources. Freedom to publish means freedom for all, not freedom for a combination to keep others from publishing.
Concurring - Justice Douglas
Yes. The exclusive arrangements in the AP's by-laws are part of a larger scheme to unlawfully restrain trade. While a simple exclusive news-sharing agreement might be innocent on its own, it becomes illegal when used as part of a combination aimed at hindering competitors of the group's members. The District Court acted within its power by enjoining the exclusive practices until the discriminatory effects of the by-laws are eliminated. This decision correctly bans discriminatory practices without reaching the broader and more complex question of whether AP should be treated as a public utility, an issue that would only arise if a true monopoly were proven.
Concurring - Justice Frankfurter
Yes. The AP's by-laws impose an unreasonable restraint of trade. The press serves a vital public interest in the dissemination of news, an interest closely related to the First Amendment. Unlike ordinary commodities like peanuts or potatoes, restraints on access to news have far greater public significance. The AP by-laws create a system where members use reciprocal self-interest to shield one another from competition. This is an unreasonable restraint because it offends the basic democratic function of a free press, which relies on the dissemination of news from as many different sources as possible. A public interest so vital cannot be defeated by private restraints.
Dissenting - Justice Roberts
No. The by-laws do not violate the Sherman Act. AP is a cooperative enterprise where members jointly produce a product—news reports—through their own effort and expense. They are entitled to the exclusive use of the product they create and are free to choose their associates. There is no evidence of an intent to destroy competition; in fact, competing news agencies like United Press and International News Service have thrived. The majority's decision improperly treats AP as a public utility, forcing it to serve all comers, which is a regulatory function for the legislature, not the judiciary. This ruling is an act of 'government-by-injunction' that threatens to shackle the press.
Dissenting - Justice Murphy
No. The government failed to provide the clear and unmistakable proof necessary to grant summary judgment. The issues are too grave to be decided without a full trial, especially given the First Amendment implications of government intervention in the press. Merely forming a successful cooperative and protecting its work product from competitors is not, by itself, an unreasonable restraint of trade. Without proof of monopoly, domination, coercion, or other predatory practices, the AP's by-laws represent a lawful exercise of a trader’s right to choose its own associates. This decision sets a dangerous precedent for unsupported government interference with the dissemination of information.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established that the newspaper industry is not exempt from antitrust laws, even when First Amendment issues are implicated. The Court's reasoning linked antitrust principles to the goals of the First Amendment, arguing that promoting competition in the 'marketplace of ideas' is essential for a functioning democracy. This case prevents dominant industry players from using cooperative agreements to gatekeep access to essential resources, thereby stifling smaller competitors. It sets a precedent that anticompetitive conduct by media organizations can be challenged on the grounds that it harms not only economic competition but also the public's access to diverse sources of information.
