State of Missouri v. National Organization for Women, Inc.
620 F.2d 1301, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19133 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sherman Antitrust Act does not apply to a politically motivated boycott designed to influence legislative action, even if it uses economic pressure and causes commercial harm, as such activity is considered a form of political petitioning.
Facts:
- The National Organization for Women (NOW) sought the ratification of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).
- Missouri was one of several states that had not ratified the ERA.
- To pressure unratified states, NOW organized and actively engaged in a nationwide economic boycott campaign, urging organizations not to hold conventions in those states.
- The sole purpose of NOW's boycott was to achieve the ratification of the ERA.
- NOW intended for the adverse economic impact on Missouri's convention industry to cause business owners and citizens to influence their state legislators to ratify the ERA.
- The boycott was not intended to be punitive for Missouri's past failure to ratify the amendment.
- NOW was not a commercial competitor of Missouri or its businesses and was not motivated by any anticompetitive or profit-seeking purpose.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Missouri sued the National Organization for Women, Inc. (NOW) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
- Missouri sought an injunction to stop the boycott, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, the Missouri Antitrust Act, and a state common law tort.
- The district court, a court of first instance, denied the injunction, finding that NOW's politically motivated activities were outside the scope of the Sherman Act.
- The State of Missouri, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with NOW as the appellee.
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 a politically motivated, non-commercial boycott organized by a non-competitor to influence legislative action constitute a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephenson, J.
No. A politically motivated, non-commercial boycott organized to influence legislative action does not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court's reasoning is based on both the legislative history of the Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. The legislative history indicates that Congress's primary concern was with business trusts and commercial competitors, not with non-commercial groups engaged in political activity. The court found that applying the Sherman Act to NOW's boycott would raise serious First Amendment questions concerning the right to petition the government. Following the principles of Noerr, which held that attempts to influence the passage of laws are not within the scope of the Sherman Act, the court concluded that NOW's boycott was a form of political activity, not a trade restraint. Even though the boycott was an economic tool, its ultimate purpose was political, placing it outside the Act's proscriptions, as the Act is tailored for the business world, not the political arena.
Dissenting - Gibson, J.
Yes. A politically motivated economic boycott that restrains trade and inflicts economic harm should be subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act. The majority interprets the Noerr decision too broadly and fails to properly balance NOW's First Amendment interests against the government's substantial interest in protecting free market competition. There is a critical distinction between this case and Noerr: in Noerr, the economic injury was an incidental effect of a publicity campaign, whereas here, the economic injury itself is the tool being used to coerce legislative action. The dissent argues that the majority virtually ignores the anticompetitive and disruptive economic impact of the boycott. The case should be remanded for the district court to conduct a proper balancing test, weighing the harm to competition against the asserted First Amendment rights, rather than granting a blanket exemption based on political motivation.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which immunizes genuine petitioning activity from antitrust liability. The ruling establishes that the doctrine's protection is not limited to traditional lobbying but extends to politically motivated economic boycotts. This decision solidifies the principle that the Sherman Act regulates commercial activity, not political disputes, even when economic weapons are used to achieve political ends. It creates a strong precedent protecting the use of boycotts as a tool for political expression, provided the primary goal is legislative change and not a mere 'sham' to harm commercial competitors.
Unlock the full brief for State of Missouri v. National Organization for Women, Inc.