Swift & Co. v. United States
196 U.S. 375 (1905)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When goods are introduced into a continuous 'stream' or 'current' of interstate commerce, Congress may regulate activities that occur within that stream, even if those activities are seemingly local, if they are part of a broader scheme to restrain or monopolize that interstate commerce.
Facts:
- A group of dominant meat packing corporations and individuals, including Swift & Co., were engaged in buying livestock at major stockyards in various states.
- The livestock was typically produced in and shipped from other states to these stockyards for sale.
- After purchasing the livestock, the defendants slaughtered it and converted it into fresh meat at their plants.
- The defendants then sold and shipped this fresh meat to dealers and consumers in states other than where it was prepared, controlling about 60% of the national market.
- The defendants formed a combination to suppress competition among themselves in the purchase of livestock by agreeing not to bid against each other.
- They also conspired to fix the prices at which they would sell fresh meat across the country and restricted shipments to maintain these prices.
- As part of their plan, the defendants colluded to obtain preferential, below-market rates and rebates from railroad companies for shipping their meat, to the exclusion of competitors.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a bill in equity in the U.S. Circuit Court against Swift & Co. and other meat packing companies (the appellants).
- The government sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from continuing their alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
- The defendants filed a demurrer, arguing that the government's bill failed to state a valid legal claim.
- The Circuit Court overruled the demurrer and granted the government's request for an injunction.
- The defendants, Swift & Co. et al., appealed the Circuit Court's decree directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 combination of meat dealers who engage in a series of anticompetitive acts at various stockyards and distribution points violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, when those activities are part of an integrated scheme to control the interstate flow of livestock and fresh meat?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes
Yes. The combination's activities violate the Sherman Antitrust Act because they are part of a unified scheme to restrain the 'current of commerce' among the states. The entire commercial process, from the time cattle are sent for sale in one state to their eventual sale as fresh meat to consumers in another, constitutes a continuous flow of interstate commerce. Even though individual actions like purchasing cattle at a stockyard occur at a single location, they are not isolated local events but are integral parts of this interstate stream. The defendants' combination and their anticompetitive intent were directed at this entire current of commerce, not just local transactions. This case is distinguished from U.S. v. E. C. Knight Co., where the combination's direct object was the monopoly of local manufacturing; here, the direct object is the monopolization of interstate sales and distribution.
Analysis:
This case established the influential 'stream of commerce' doctrine, significantly broadening the scope of Congress's regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. By treating a series of transactions from producer to consumer as a single, continuous interstate flow, the Court allowed federal antitrust law to reach activities that might otherwise be considered purely local. This decision marked a crucial departure from the narrower view of commerce in cases like U.S. v. E. C. Knight Co., which had distinguished between manufacturing and commerce. The 'stream of commerce' doctrine became a foundational concept for future expansions of federal power, particularly during the New Deal, enabling regulation of many aspects of the national economy.
