Laura Bergus

Today the United States Supreme Court released its opinion in the antitrust case American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League. The question was whether or not the NFL could be held accountable under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which regulates agreements that restrain trade. SCOTUS decided that the NFL, despite having formed a tidy single legal entity back in 1963 to handle all the teams’ licensing needs (National Football League Properties) , was not acting as a single entity and therefore could be held to account for restraining trade under Section 1.  The holding invalidates Judge Easterbrook’s 7th Circuit opinion in Chicago Prof’l Sports v. NBA that treated a sports league as a single entity for antitrust purposes, the case on which the 7th Circuit relied, in part, for its affirmation of summary judgment in the NFL’s favor.

This opinion:

1. Reaffirms my ♥ for Justice Stevens.
2. Reads like a mini-treatise on how and why the court got to where it is today in this function-over-form assessment of combinations that might restrain trade.
3. Severely overuses the phrase “independent centers of decisionmaking.”
4. Is a reminder that the new administration’s antitrust machine is rolling right along (see the amicus brief for this case here).
5. Makes me grateful for having learned antitrust from Herbert Hovenkamp.

Cases like this — that concretely connect something I’ve recently studied in law school to the popular real work — fully activate my dormant lawgeek, and make me glad I’ve committed to learning and studying law.

While it is definitely the cool thing for law students (like most students) to hate on their professors, I’m actually pretty psyched for next semester.  It’s true that the driving force behind this post is avoiding studying for this semester’s finals, but today was the last day of classes, so cut me some slack.

First, there will be Law in the Muslim World (*love* the website design).  I don’t think I’m interested in international/comparative law, which is precisely why I’m looking forward to this class.  I’ve found I learn more in classes I know less about, so this should be fun.  The professor, Adrien Wing, once wrote a paper called “Brief Reflections towards a Multiplicative Theory and Praxis of Being.”  I expect to be challenged.

On the flip side is Law of Electronic Media, taught by former FCC commissioner and public access (television, that is) super-advocate, Nick Johnson (again with the awesome website!).  Due to my background in local access TV and telecommunications generally, I will walk into this class thinking I know something.  Chances are, Professor Johnson will prove me utterly wrong.  Having read and referenced  several of Johnson’s writings over the years, I’m looking forward to being in this small class.

Then comes the one-two IP punch of Copyrights and Antitrust.  [Wait, are those both IP?  I thought IP meant "internet protocol"??]  These classes are back in the I-know-nothing-except-what-minimal-exposure-to-popular-culture-and-NPR-has-taught-me category.  I was excited to read the abstract to Professor Christina Bohannan’s recent paper and realize she’s interested in looking at how intellectual property law limits freedom of expression.  My perception is that a fair number of my classmates are more interested in learning how to protect (read: lock down, profit from, or stifle competition in the name of) IP of their future clients.  I’m interested to see if they or I end up disappointed.

Antitrust is taught by giant of the field (and Bohannan’s husband) Herbert Hovenkamp.  He was my Torts instructor last fall and was awfully nice to students.  Bohannan and Hovenkamp are also working on a book about how complex IP laws actually discourage innovation.

While I’m a bit sad to be leaving the pack of fellow students in Section 7 (they’re mostly taking Con Law II and Evidence), I’ll have the chance to make new friends.  Or, to sit in the front row and not meet anyone, like I usually do… But I honestly am looking forward to it.