Summary

William J. Brennan, Jr. Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association…

The Court's approach today is all the more inappropriate because the success of the Trial Lawyers' boycott could have been attributable to the persuasiveness of its message rather than any coercive economic force. When a boycott seeks to generate public support for the passage of legislation, it may operate on a political rather than economic level, especially when the government is the target.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association…

As we have seen, in all likelihood the boycott succeeded not due to any market power wielded by the lawyers but rather because they were able to persuade the District government through political means. Other boycotts may involve no expressive features and instead operate solely on an economic level. Very few economically coercive boycotts seek notoriety both because they seek to escape detection and because they have no wider audience beyond the participants and the target.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association…

Application of the per se rule in the instant case denies the Trial Lawyers even this opportunity.↑ If a boycott uses economic power in an unlawful way to send a message, it cannot claim First Amendment protection from the antitrust laws, any more than a terrorist could use an act of violence to express his political views and then assert immunity from criminal prosecution. Thus, if a cartel in a regulated industry inflicts economic injury on consumers by raising prices in order to communicate with the government, it still would be subject to the per se rule.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature