Flood v. Kuhn et al.
407 U.S. 258 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Professional baseball's reserve system is exempt from federal antitrust laws because of the longstanding precedent established in Federal Baseball Club v. National League (1922) and affirmed in Toolson v. New York Yankees (1953), which the Court will not overturn without congressional action.
Facts:
- Curtis C. Flood began his major league baseball career in 1956 and became a star center fielder for the St. Louis Cardinals from 1958 to 1969.
- In October 1969, the St. Louis Cardinals traded Flood to the Philadelphia Phillies in a multi-player transaction without his prior knowledge or consultation.
- Flood was informed of the completed trade by telephone.
- In December 1969, Flood wrote to the Commissioner of Baseball asking to be declared a free agent so he could negotiate with any team, but his request was denied based on baseball's reserve system.
- Flood refused to report to the Philadelphia Phillies for the 1970 season, sitting out the entire year despite a $100,000 salary offer.
- After the 1970 season, Philadelphia's rights to Flood were sold to the Washington Senators, for whom he played briefly in 1971 before leaving professional baseball.
Procedural Posture:
- Curtis Flood instituted an antitrust suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Commissioner of Baseball, league presidents, and the 24 major league clubs.
- The District Court denied Flood's motion for a preliminary injunction.
- After a trial, the District Court entered judgment for the defendants, holding that the Supreme Court's decisions in Federal Baseball and Toolson were controlling.
- Flood, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, stating it was compelled to follow the existing Supreme Court precedents.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Flood's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the case.
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 professional baseball's reserve system, which contractually binds a player to a team for the duration of their career, violate federal antitrust laws?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No, professional baseball's reserve system does not violate federal antitrust laws. The Court reaffirms the precedent set in Federal Baseball and Toolson, which established baseball's unique exemption from these laws. The Court acknowledges that this exemption is an 'aberration' and 'illogical' compared to the treatment of other professional sports, but it is an established one entitled to the benefit of stare decisis. For fifty years, Congress has been aware of this judicial exemption and has chosen not to enact legislation to overturn it; this 'positive inaction' is interpreted as a clear desire not to subject baseball to antitrust laws. The Court expressed concern that judicially overturning the long-standing precedent would create confusion and retroactive problems, concluding that any remedy, if one is needed, must come from Congress, not the judiciary.
Concurrence - Chief Justice Burger
No, the reserve system does not violate federal antitrust laws. While expressing 'grave reservations' about the correctness of the Toolson decision, the error is one on which the industry has relied for a long time. The Court is not the proper forum to unsnarl this 'tangled web.' The most appropriate course is to leave the matter to Congress to resolve through legislation.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
Yes, professional baseball's reserve system violates federal antitrust laws. The Court's 1922 decision in Federal Baseball is a 'derelict in the stream of the law' based on an outmoded and narrow view of commerce. Under modern jurisprudence, baseball is clearly a big business engaged in interstate commerce and should be subject to the Sherman Act, just like other industries and professional sports. The equities lie with the players who are victims of this unreasonable restraint of trade, not the owners. Congressional inaction should not be interpreted as approval; rather, the Court should correct its own past mistake.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, professional baseball's reserve system violates federal antitrust laws. The Court's precedents in Federal Baseball and Toolson are 'totally at odds with more recent and better reasoned cases.' Admitting that baseball is now undeniably interstate commerce, the Court's own decisions applying antitrust laws to other sports like football and boxing require that baseball be brought under their coverage. The principle of stare decisis should not be used to deny players their substantial federal rights under antitrust laws, which are the 'Magna Carta of free enterprise.' The Court should overrule its prior errors, make the decision prospective to protect reliance interests, and remand the case for a determination of whether a labor law exemption might apply.
Analysis:
This decision solidified professional baseball's unique and anomalous exemption from federal antitrust laws, firmly rooting the justification in stare decisis and the doctrine of congressional acquiescence. By acknowledging the precedent was likely wrongly decided ('illogical' and an 'aberration') but refusing to overturn it, the Court drew a sharp, permanent line between baseball and all other professional sports. This ruling effectively shifted the power to regulate the business of baseball from the judiciary to the legislature, creating a high barrier for future legal challenges and reinforcing that any change to baseball's antitrust status must come from an act of Congress.
Unlock the full brief for Flood v. Kuhn et al.