Nash v. United States
229 U.S. 373 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sherman Antitrust Act's prohibition on conspiracies in "restraint of trade" is not unconstitutionally vague for use in criminal prosecutions. Furthermore, a conspiracy charge under the Sherman Act does not require the allegation or proof of an overt act beyond the formation of the conspiracy itself.
Facts:
- The American Naval Stores Company and its executives, including Nash, were engaged in buying, selling, and exporting spirits of turpentine and rosin.
- The company allegedly conspired with the National Transportation and Terminal Company and its executives to restrain trade and monopolize the naval stores industry.
- The alleged conspiracy involved numerous anti-competitive actions intended to drive competitors out of business.
- These actions included bidding down prices to ruinous levels for competitors and refraining from purchasing at the primary market, Savannah, to artificially depress market prices.
- The conspirators were also accused of coercing brokers into exclusive contracts by refusing to purchase from them otherwise.
- They allegedly circulated false statements about production levels and stocks to manipulate the market.
- The plan also included selling naval stores far below cost to force competitors to meet unsustainable prices.
Procedural Posture:
- Nash and others were indicted in federal trial court on two counts of conspiracy under the Sherman Act.
- The defendants filed a demurrer to the indictment, arguing that the Sherman Act was unconstitutionally vague for criminal application and that the indictment failed to allege an overt act.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer, allowing the case to proceed.
- Following a plea of not guilty, a jury trial was held.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Nash and several other individual defendants guilty.
- The defendants then brought the case before the U.S. Supreme Court for review of their convictions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits conspiracies in "restraint of trade," so vague as to be unenforceable on its criminal side, thereby violating the constitutional requirement of definiteness in criminal statutes?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes
No, the Sherman Antitrust Act is not unconstitutionally vague for criminal enforcement. A criminal law is not unconstitutionally indefinite merely because it requires a jury to determine a matter of degree, such as whether conduct is 'unreasonable.' The court reasoned that the common law is replete with examples where a person's liability depends on a jury's subsequent estimation of their conduct's reasonableness or degree of danger, such as in cases of manslaughter or murder. Citing the 'rule of reason' established in Standard Oil, the court held that the standard of 'unduly restricting competition' provides a sufficiently ascertainable standard of guilt. The court also held that the Sherman Act punishes the conspiracy itself on a common law basis, meaning no overt act beyond the agreement is required for liability. Although the court upheld the Act's constitutionality, it reversed the conviction on other grounds, finding the trial court's jury instructions were erroneous because they permitted the jury to convict based on acts that, by themselves, constituted mere cheating rather than a conspiracy in restraint of trade.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Pitney
Mr. Justice Pitney dissented from the majority opinion without providing a written explanation.
Analysis:
This case is significant for cementing the government's power to bring criminal prosecutions under the Sherman Antitrust Act. By rejecting the vagueness challenge, the Supreme Court ensured that the 'rule of reason' standard from Standard Oil did not neuter the Act's criminal enforcement provisions. The decision established that business executives could be held criminally liable for anti-competitive conspiracies, even if the line between aggressive-but-legal competition and illegal restraint of trade is not defined with mathematical precision. This holding empowers federal prosecutors and places a burden on business actors to ensure their conduct does not cross into an 'unreasonable' restraint of trade as a jury might later determine it.
Unlock the full brief for Nash v. United States