Flood v. Kuhn
| Flood v. Kuhn | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 20, 1972 Decided June 19, 1972 |
|
| Full case name | Curt Flood v. Bowie Kuhn, et al. |
| Citations | 407 U.S. 258 (more) |
| Prior history | 309 F. Supp. 793 (SDNY 1970), preliminary injunction denied; 443 F.2d 264 (CA2, 1971), affirmed |
| Holding | |
| Professional baseball is in fact interstate commerce under the Sherman Antitrust Act, but congressional acquiescence in previous jurisprudence to the contrary make it the legislative branch's responsibility to end or modify antitrust exemption unique among professional sports. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Blackmun, joined by Stewart, Rehnquist (in full); Burger, White (all but part I) |
| Concurrence | Burger |
| Dissent | Douglas, joined by Brennan |
| Dissent | Marshall, joined by Brennan |
| Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 USC 1291–1295 | |
Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding, by a 5–3 margin, the antitrust exemption first granted to Major League Baseball (MLB) in Federal Baseball Club v. National League. It arose from a challenge by St. Louis Cardinals' outfielder Curt Flood when he refused to be traded to the Philadelphia Phillies after the 1969 season. He sought injunctive relief from the reserve clause, which prevented him from negotiating with another team for a year after his contract expired. Named as initial respondents were baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn, MLB and all of its then-24 member clubs.
Although the Court ruled in baseball's favor 5–3, it admitted the original grounds for the antitrust exemption were tenuous at best, that baseball was indeed interstate commerce for purposes of the act and the exemption was an "anomaly" it had explicitly refused to extend to other professional sports or entertainment. That admission set in motion events which ultimately led to an arbitrator's ruling nullifying the reserve clause and opening the door for free agency in baseball and other sports.
The opinion has been criticized in several ways. It is seen by some as an overly strict and reflexive reliance on the legal doctrine of stare decisis that made an earlier mistake "uncorrectable". Even the text of the decision itself, mainly a seven-page introductory to the game and its history by Justice Harry Blackmun that included a lengthy listing of baseball greats, came in for criticism. Some of the other justices, and Court observers, felt it was inappropriate for a judicial opinion. At the time of his later retirement and death, Blackmun would be remembered for it as much as Roe v. Wade.
...
Wikipedia