Salerno v. American League of Professional Baseball Clubs
1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8187, 429 F.2d 1003, 74 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2929 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal appellate court is bound by Supreme Court precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis and may not overrule it, even if the precedent is widely criticized, unless there is a near certainty that the Supreme Court is prepared to do so. The judicially-created exemption of professional baseball from federal antitrust laws remains binding on lower courts until the Supreme Court itself overturns it.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs were umpires for the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs.
- They engaged in efforts to organize the American League umpires for the purpose of collective bargaining.
- The president of the American League discharged the plaintiffs.
- The league's stated reason for the discharge was incompetence, but the plaintiffs alleged the true reason was their union organizing activities.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- Plaintiffs then filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the American League and others, alleging violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts and a state-law claim of defamation.
- The only defendant served, Commissioner of Baseball Bowie Kuhn, filed a motion to dismiss for want of federal jurisdiction.
- The district court (trial court) granted the motion to dismiss.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the dismissal of the antitrust claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, abandoning the defamation claim.
- The American League and its president (appellees) were parties to the appeal.
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 judicially-created exemption from federal antitrust laws bar a claim by discharged umpires who allege they were fired as part of a conspiracy in restraint of trade for attempting to unionize?
Opinions:
Majority - Friendly, J.
No, the claim is barred by precedent. The court is bound by the Supreme Court's holdings in Federal Baseball and Toolson, which established that professional baseball is not subject to federal antitrust laws. Although this court openly finds the baseball exemption to be 'unrealistic, inconsistent, and illogical,' it adheres to the principle that only the Supreme Court has the authority to overrule its own decisions. A lower court should not act to overturn Supreme Court precedent unless its reversal is a 'near certainty.' The court also expressed serious doubt that the plaintiffs' claim, which is essentially a labor dispute over wrongful discharge, would constitute an antitrust violation even if the exemption did not exist.
Analysis:
This decision is a strong affirmation of vertical stare decisis, highlighting the hierarchical structure of the federal court system. The court's candid and extensive criticism of the baseball antitrust exemption, while ultimately upholding it, signaled to the legal community and the Supreme Court that the precedent was on shaky ground. By refusing to overrule the precedent itself, the Second Circuit reinforced the principle that lower courts are bound by higher court decisions, no matter how flawed they may seem. This case thereby places the responsibility for correcting or abandoning long-standing but illogical precedent squarely on the Supreme Court or Congress.
