State Oil Co v Khan Citation 522 U S 3 1997 Facts of the Case Barkat U Khan and his corporation contracted with State Oil to lease and run a gas station Under the agreement State Oil set a maximum profit margin for gasoline and required Khan to return any excess profits to State Oil Khan fell behind in lease payments and was evicted Khan then sued State Oil claiming that State Oil had engaged in price fixing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act which disallows restrictions on trade State Oil claimed that in setting profit margins they had not prevented Kahn from setting prices and therefore were not guilty of price fixing On appeal the U S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found in favor of Kahn based on the logic of Albrecht v Herald Co in which the Supreme Court ruled that some restrictions on trade such as price fixing always have such negative effects coupled with such little competitive benefit that these restrictions are always unlawful Question Is the setting of maximum prices always per se a violation of the Sherman Act s prohibition on price fixing Conclusion No In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sandra Day O Connor the Court overturned the Albrecht decision The Court noted that antitrust cases are typically decided by weighing the costs and benefits of restrictions in each individual case instead of by per se rules as in Albrecht Also there was significant precedent contradicting the assertion that all trade restrictions are illegal and there was evidence that the effects of price fixing are not as detrimental as the Court thought at the time of Albrecht FDA v Brown Williamson Tobacco Corp Citation 529 U S 120 2000 Facts of the Case he Food Drug and Cosmetic Act FDCA grants the Food and Drug Administration FDA the authority to regulate among other items drugs and devices In 1996 the FDA asserted jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products concluding that under the FDCA nicotine is a drug and cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are devices that deliver nicotine to the body Accordingly the FDA promulgated regulations governing tobacco products promotion labeling and accessibility to children and adolescents Brown Williamson Tobacco Corporation and a group of tobacco manufacturers retailers and advertisers filed suit challenging the FDA s regulations Brown moved for summary judgement on the ground that the FDA lacked the jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed or without manufacturer claims of therapeutic benefit The District Court ruled that the FDA had jurisdiction over tobacco as a device but that the agency had overstepped its authority in attempting to restrict tobacco advertising In reversing the Court of Appeals held that Congress had not granted the FDA jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products The court found that the FDA s definition of tobacco as a device was flawed because the agency could not prove that the impact of tobacco products on the body was intended under the act Question Does the Food and Drug Administration have the authority to regulate tobacco products as drugs and devices under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act Conclusion No In a 5 4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O Connor the Court held that Congress has not given the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed The ruling was based on the FDCA as a whole and in conjunction with Congress subsequent tobacco specific legislation By no means do we question the seriousness of the problem that the FDA has sought to address Justice O Connor wrote for the majority Nonetheless Justice O Connor wrote Congress for better or for worse has created a distinct regulatory scheme for tobacco products squarely rejected proposals to give the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco and repeatedly acted to preclude any agency from exercising significant policymaking authority in the area Campbell v Acuff Rose Music Citation 510 U S 569 1994 Facts of the Case Acuff Rose Music Inc sued 2 Live Crew and their record company claiming that 2 Live Crew s song Pretty Woman infringed Acuff Rose s copyright in Roy Orbison s Oh Pretty Woman The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song In reversing the Court of Appeals held that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair Question May 2 Live Crew s commercial parody of Roy Orbison s Oh Pretty Woman be a fair use within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1976 Conclusion Yes In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H Souter the Court held that a parody s commercial character is only one element to be weighed in a fair use enquiry and that insufficient consideration was given to the nature of parody in weighing the degree of copying The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the presumption that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair as no such evidentiary presumption was available to address either the character and purpose of the use or the market harm Justice Souter wrote that the appellate court erred in holding that 2 Live Crew had necessarily copied excessively from the Orbison original considering the parodic purpose of the use Justice Anthony M Kennedy filed a concurring opinion Eldred v Ashcroft Citation 537 U S 186 2003 Facts of the Case Under the Copyright and Patent Clause of the Constitution Article 1 section 8 Congress shall have Power to promote the Progress of Science by securing to Authors for limited Times the exclusive Right to their Writings In the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act CTEA Congress enlarged the duration of copyrights by 20 years making copyrights now run from creation until 70 years after the author s death Petitioners whose products or services build on copyrighted works that have entered the public domain argued that the CTEA violates both the Copyright Clause s limited Times prescription and the First Amendment s free speech guarantee They claimed Congress cannot extend the copyright term for published works with existing copyrights The District Court and the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed Question Does the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act s extension of existing copyrights exceed Congress s power under the Copyright Clause Does the CTEA s extension of existing and future copyrights violate the First Amendment Conclusion No and no In a 7 2 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the Court
View Full Document
Unlocking...