instructions:

First read the case below and then respond to questions 1 and 2. Please save your answers using Word before uploading. If you don't have Word then you can save as a .rtf file.

 

Case 20.2: Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972), [P. 571]

 

Facts: Flood was a professional baseball player who was traded by the St. Louis Cardinals to the Philadelphia Phillies. For a variety of reasons, Flood was unhappy with the trade and refused to report to his new team while forfeiting a significant salary. Flood sent a letter to the Commissioner of Major League Baseball (Kuhn) demanding free agency. Kuhn declined to grant Flood free agency on the basis of the “reserve clause” in Flood’s contract. As a practical matter, the clause allowed a team to retain the rights of a player indefinitely. Therefore, the clause prevented Flood from negotiating with another team and gave St. Louis the right to trade him to a new team or renew his contract.

Issue: Are the reserve clauses in the contracts illegal under the Sherman Act?

Ruling: No. The U.S. Supreme Court held for Kuhn and upheld the exemption primarily based on the doctrine of stare decisis. Although the Court acknowledged that it is reasonable to conclude that baseball is now engaged interstate commerce, they did not reverse their earlier decisions because of what the Court concluded was Congress’s “positive inaction” to their earlier decisions exempting Major League Baseball from the antitrust laws.

 

Case Questions

1. Should stare decisis be such a powerful doctrine that it trumps modern societal realities (such as baseball’s growing use of interstate commerce via radio and television)? Be sure to explain your answers.

 

2. As a public policy matter, do you agree that Major League Baseball should have an exemption from antitrust laws? Why or why not?