State Action Immunity, Municipalities, and the Unique Case of Eminent Domain

By Motto, Joseph L. | Journal of Corporation Law, Spring 2008 | Go to article overview

State Action Immunity, Municipalities, and the Unique Case of Eminent Domain


Motto, Joseph L., Journal of Corporation Law


  I. INTRODUCTION
 II. BACKGROUND
     A. Initial Development of the State Action Doctrine: Maintaining
        State Sovereignty
     B. Application and Development of Parker: Tailoring the Limits
        of Sovereignty
        1. Defining the Parker Analysis
        2. The Process-Oriented Approach of Midcal
        3. Refining the Midcal Approach
     C. Expansion of Parker: Renewal of Economic Federalism
     D. Improper Motive and Eminent Domain
III. ANALYSIS
     A. The Conflicting Values of Antitrust and Federalism
        1. Participation, Politics, and Capture
        2. Experimentation, Decentralization, and Regulatory
           Competition
     B. Reassessing the Current State Action Doctrine
        1. Requiring Active State Supervision
        2. Creating a Market Participant Exception
        3. Purpose and the Unique Case of Eminent Domain
 IV. CONCLUSION

I. INTRODUCTION

In Pennsylvania v. Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority (SARAA I), the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania held that the Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority (SARAA or "the airport authority"), a municipal authority operating under a broad enabling act, may exercise its power of eminent domain to condemn a privately owned airport parking service in direct competition with its own parking service without being subject to suit for violations of federal antitrust law. (1) The private lot at issue in SARAA I was the airport authority's sole competitor for parking services provided to travelers flying in and out of the Harrisburg International Airport (HIA). (2) The condemnation will therefore provide SARAA with a monopoly over parking services at the HIA. Despite acknowledging the flagrantly anticompetitive effect of SARAA's conduct, (3) the district court found that SARAA was exempt from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine. (4) Responding to the plaintiff's claim that SARAA was acting with an improper motive--namely, to monopolize the parking services market rather than to serve the public interest--the court suggested that eminent domain proceedings were the appropriate forum for addressing motive. (5)

Eight months later, SARAA was once again in front of the district court, this time for allegedly entering into anticompetitive, exclusive dealings contracts with a taxi service. (6) However, this time the court found that state action immunity did not exempt the airport authority from antitrust liability. (7) In each case, SARAA acted pursuant to the same enabling act, although in SARAA I, the airport authority exercised its grant of eminent domain, (8) and in SARAA II, the airport authority exercised its power to execute contracts convenient for carrying on its business. (9) The court distinguished the two cases on the grounds that the exercise of eminent domain will inevitably result in the displacement of competition, whereas anticompetitive effects are not the logical result of the state grant of freedom to contract. (10) This distinction was dispositive because, in order to receive state action immunity, anticompetitive conduct by a municipality must be the foreseeable result of a clearly articulated state policy. (11)

SARAA I highlights the ease with which a municipal actor may receive state action immunity. Taken alone, SARAA I demands a reassessment of the current state action doctrine. Taken together with SARAA II, SARAA I demonstrates that eminent domain is a particularly problematic issue within the greater discussion regarding municipalities and antitrust exemption. As the SARAA I court noted, the condemnation of land well-suited for a particular purpose, project, or facility obviously has the potential to negatively impact market competition. (12) Because the likelihood of competitive fallout is so obvious, the exercise of eminent domain should presumably meet the foreseeability test every time, absent clear expression of a contrary intent on the part of the legislature. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

State Action Immunity, Municipalities, and the Unique Case of Eminent Domain
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.