Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Standard Oil as Lochner's Trojan Horse

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Alan J. Meese, William & Mary Law School has a wonderful paper on Standard Oil as Lochner's Trojan Horse.

ABSTRACT: This essay explains how one of the most maligned decisions in Constitutional Law, Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) lives on in one of the Sherman Act’s most celebrated decisions: Standard Oil v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911). Standard Oil, it is shown, was simply an application of Lochnerian principles to antitrust policy. In particular, Standard Oil’s “Rule of Reason,” universally-embraced by modern jurists and scholars, functioned as a device for narrowing the Sherman Act to avoid abridging contracts and other conduct protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. By banning only that conduct producing higher prices, reduced output or inferior quality, the Court left unscathed so-called “normal” or “ordinary” conduct necessary to “fructify” trade and create wealth, conduct beyond the scope of the “police power” as understood by Lochner and its progeny. In so doing, the Court simply reiterated the principles articulated by previous decisions, which had banned as “direct” those restraints that resulted in prices above the competitive level, leaving firms and individuals free to adopt “indirect” restraints sheltered by liberty of contract. Thus, Lochner lives on in Sherman Act case law, with no sign of mortality.

The essay also explores how a Lochnerized Rule of Reason would address two current antitrust controversies: first, the appropriate definition of “consumer welfare,” and second, whether courts should condemn “normal” conduct when a balancing test reveals that the harms produced by such conduct outweigh its benefits. Implementation of Lochnerian principles would, it is shown, require courts to equate the “consumer welfare” relevant for antitrust doctrine with “total welfare” instead of the welfare of purchasers in the relevant market. After all, the “police power” invoked by Lochner and its progeny entailed the power to ban externalities and other market failures, while decisions such as Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915) rejected, as outside the police power, interference with liberty and property that simply redistributed wealth from one party to another. Lochnerian principles would also require antitrust courts to reject the sort of balancing that supposedly characterizes modern Rule of Reason analysis.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2013/05/standard-oil-as-lochners-trojan-horse.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef017eea249297970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Standard Oil as Lochner's Trojan Horse:

Comments

Thanks for highlighting this essay! Your link currently leads to "Coordinating Static and Dynamic Supply Chains with Advertising through Two-Part Tariffs." You may wish to change it to http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2241175

Posted by: PG | May 10, 2013 12:42:37 PM

Post a comment