Targeted Statutory Exemptions And Reversals Of Disfavored Judicial Decisions

• Author: Christopher L. Sagers
• Pages: 347-360

347

CHAPTER XVI

TARGETED STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS AND

REVERSALS OF DISFAVORED JUDICIAL

DECISIONS

At least since the 1930s there has been some incidence of highly

focused, targeted statutory exemptions that either exempt some very

narrow activity or give it leniency. These targeted statutes have most

often been reactions to specific lawsuits or judicial decisions. They have

become much more frequent than they once were. The first such law

appears to have been the Miller-Tydings Act,

1

a resale pricing statute of

1937 which was repealed in 1975. But since the Sports Broadcasting Act

of 1961

2

there have been at least nine, most of them adopted since about

1980.

3

Two of these laws are discussed elsewhere in this book: the Sports

Broadcasting Act of 1961 (and a 1966 amendment),

4

and the Newspaper

Preservation Act of 1970, by which Congress reversed a 1966 Supreme

1

. Miller-Tydings Fair Trade Act, ch. 690, 50 Stat. 693 (1937). The act

authorized states to permit resale price fixing within their territories, and

provided that when authorized by a state such price fixing would not

violate federal antitrust. The act was intended to undo Doctor Miles Med.

Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911), which held resale

price fixing per se illegal. The Miller-Tydings Act was repealed in 1975.

See Consumer Goods Pricing Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-145, 89 Stat.

801 (1975).

2

. Namely, the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, Pub. L. No. 87–331, 75

Stat. 732 (1961) (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1291-95), was enacted to undo

the decision in United States v. NFL, 196 F. Supp. 445, 446 (E.D. Pa.

1961).

3

. Strictly speaking, Congress had amended the scope of antitrust on several

other occasions to overturn disfavored judicial opinions. For example,

Congress amended the scope of Clayton Act § 7 several times to undo

restrictive Supreme Court interpretations. See Chapter II.A.3. But in all

those other ca ses, Congress acted to expand the scope of antitrust. All of

the laws discussed here are exemptions or limitations.

4

. See Chapters XIV.C.1 and XIV.C.2.