James William Pope v. Mississippi Real Estate Commission
872 F.2d 127, 13 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 694, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 14482 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A real estate board's membership fee schedule that reasonably allocates costs based on agency size does not violate antitrust laws. Additionally, a state's regulation of commercial speech that is misleading or concerns unlawful activity does not violate the First Amendment, and providing notice and a post-deprivation appeal process satisfies procedural due process.
Facts:
- James and Mary Pope operated a real estate agency in Monroe County, Mississippi, and were members of the Monroe County Board of Realtors.
- The Board's charter required dues to be assessed based on the number of agents in an agency, but it had historically assessed dues on an equal, per-agency basis.
- When the Popes' agency grew to employ about half of the county's real estate agents, the Board began enforcing its charter, which significantly increased the dues owed by the Popes' agency.
- In 1981, the Popes refused to pay the higher dues and voluntarily withdrew from the Board.
- As non-members, the Popes were denied access to the Board's Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and were prohibited from using the registered trademark term 'realtor.'
- Separately, the Mississippi Real Estate Commission, a state agency, reprimanded James Pope for various advertising practices, including offering a defective gift, publishing a partially inaccurate brochure, and advertising a course as Commission-approved when it was not.
- The Commission also cautioned Pope for drawing legal descriptions of real estate, which it considered the unlicensed practice of law.
Procedural Posture:
- James and Mary Pope filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi against the Monroe County Board of Realtors, the National Association of Realtors, and the Mississippi Real Estate Commission.
- After the completion of discovery, all defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, dismissing the Popes' federal claims with prejudice.
- The Popes, as appellants, filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 a private real estate board's membership rules, including a fee schedule based on the number of agents per firm, and a state commission's regulations against misleading advertising, violate federal antitrust laws and the First Amendment, respectively?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A real estate board's fee schedule based on the number of agents per firm is not an unreasonable restraint of trade, and a state commission's regulations against misleading advertising do not violate the First Amendment. The court analyzed the antitrust claim under the rule of reason, finding the fee schedule was not an anticompetitive barrier but a 'patently reasonable' method of apportioning costs, as the Popes' larger firm would presumably make greater use of the board's services. Regarding the constitutional claims, the court held that commercial speech is only protected if it is not misleading and concerns lawful activity. The Popes' advertising (a partially misleading brochure, an unapproved course, and a defective gift) and other actions (unlicensed practice of law) were not protected speech. Furthermore, the Popes' due process rights were not violated because the state provided adequate notice and an 'unfettered right' to appeal the Commission's decisions in state court.
Concurring - Alvin B. Rubin, Circuit Judge
I concur in the result and most of the opinion. However, I disagree with the majority's decision to construe the Mississippi statute concerning the giving of gifts. The Popes’ constitutional challenge to this specific statute was not substantial enough to require the court to interpret the state law or suggest it might be unconstitutional if not interpreted in the way the majority proposed.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the application of the 'rule of reason' standard to the membership rules of professional associations, establishing that fee structures proportional to a member's size or likely use of services are generally permissible under antitrust law. It distinguishes such reasonable business practices from per se illegal group boycotts. The decision also affirms the established principle that commercial speech receives less protection than other forms of speech, clarifying that states retain significant authority to regulate and sanction advertising that is false, misleading, or relates to illegal conduct without violating the First Amendment.
