|Associated Press v. United States|
|Argued December 5–6, 1944|
Decided June 18, 1945
|Full case name||Associated Press v. United States; Tribune Company v. United States; United States v. Associated Press|
|Citations||326 U.S. 1 (more)|
65 S. Ct. 1416; 89 L. Ed. 2013
|Prior history||Certiorari to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York|
|The Associated Press violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by prohibiting member newspapers from selling or providing any news to nonmember organizations as well as making it very difficult for nonmember newspapers to join the AP.|
|Majority||Black, joined by Reed, Douglas, Rutledge (in full); Stone, Roberts, Frankfurter, Murphy (in parts)|
|Concurrence||Frankfurter (in judgment)|
|Concur/dissent||Roberts, joined by Stone|
|Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
The Associated Press (AP) had prohibited member newspapers from selling or providing news (whether that news was supplied by the AP, or was authored by the member newspaper - called "spontaneous" news) to nonmember organizations as well as making it very difficult for nonmember newspapers to join the AP.
Originally there were three separate cases (Associated Press et al. v. U.S., Tribune Company et al. v. U.S. and U.S. v. Associated Press et al.) that were joined into one when heard at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Associated Press had violated the Sherman Act. The bylaws of AP at that time, as written, constituted restraint of trade. The fact that AP had not achieved a complete monopoly was irrelevant. The First Amendment did not excuse newspapers from violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. News, traded between states, counts as interstate commerce, and thus makes the issue relevant for the Sherman Antitrust Act. Finally, Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests (326 U.S. 20).
The Associated Press (AP) is a U.S.-based not-for-profit news agency headquartered in New York City. Founded in 1846, it operates as a cooperative, unincorporated association. Its members are U.S. newspapers and broadcasters. Its Statement of News Values and Principles spells out its standards and practices.The AP has earned 52 Pulitzer Prizes, including 31 for photography, since the award was established in 1917.
The AP has counted the vote in U.S. elections since 1848, including national, state and local races down to the legislative level in all 50 states, along with key ballot measures. AP collects and verifies returns in every county, parish, city and town across the U.S., and declares winners in over 5,000 contests.
The AP news report, distributed to its members and customers, is produced in English, Spanish and Arabic. AP content is also available on the agency's app, AP News. A 2017 study by NewsWhip revealed that AP content was more engaged with on Facebook than content from any individual English-language publisher.As of 2016, news collected by the AP was published and republished by more than 1,300 newspapers and broadcasters. The AP operates 263 news bureaus in 106 countries. It also operates the AP Radio Network, which provides newscasts twice hourly for broadcast and satellite radio and television stations. Many newspapers and broadcasters outside the United States are AP subscribers, paying a fee to use AP material without being contributing members of the cooperative. As part of their cooperative agreement with the AP, most member news organizations grant automatic permission for the AP to distribute their local news reports. The AP employs the "inverted pyramid" formula for writing which enables the news outlets to edit a story to fit its available publication area without losing the story's essentials.
Cutbacks at rival United Press International in 1993 left the AP as the United States' primary news service, although UPI still produces and distributes stories and photos daily. Other English-language news services, such as the BBC, Reuters and the English-language service of Agence France-Presse, are based outside the United States.Essential facilities doctrine
The essential facilities doctrine (sometimes also referred to as the essential facility doctrine) is a legal doctrine which describes a particular type of claim of monopolization made under competition laws. In general, it refers to a type of anti-competitive behavior in which a firm with market power uses a "bottleneck" in a market to deny competitors entry into the market. It is closely related to a claim for refusal to deal.
The doctrine has its origins in United States law, but it has been adopted (often with some modification) into the legal systems of the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, and the European Union.Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC
Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457 (1941), is a 1941 decision of the United States Supreme Court sustaining an order of the Federal Trade Commission against a boycott agreement (concerted refusal to deal) among manufacturers of "high-fashion" dresses. The purpose of the boycott was to suppress "style piracy" (unauthorized copying of original dress creations of Fashion Guild members). The FTC found the Fashion Guild in violation of § 5 of the FTC Act, because the challenged conduct was a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.Freedom of the press in the United States
Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment is generally understood to prevent the government from interfering with the distribution of information and opinions.
Nevertheless, freedom of the press In the United States is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law, a lack of protection for whistleblowers, barriers to information access and constraints caused by public hostility to journalists.
International agencies rank the United States behind most other Western nations for press freedom, but ahead of most Asian, African and South American countries.International News Service v. Associated Press
International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), also known as INS v. AP or simply the INS case, is a 1918 decision of the United States Supreme Court that enunciated the misappropriation doctrine of federal intellectual property common law—that a "quasi-property right" may be created against others by one's investment of effort and money in an intangible thing, such as information or a design. The doctrine is highly controversial and criticized by many legal scholars, but it has its supporters.The INS decision recognized the doctrine of U.S. copyright law that there is no copyright in facts, which the Supreme Court later greatly elaborated in the Feist case in 1991, but nonetheless INS extended the prior law of unfair competition to cover an additional type of interference with business expectations: "misappropriation" of the product of "sweat of the brow." The case was decided during a period when a body of federal common law existed for business practices and torts, which the Supreme Court had power to declare or create, but two decades later the Supreme Court abolished that body of substantive law and held that state law must govern the field henceforth. Accordingly, the INS case no longer has precedential force, although state courts are free to follow its reasoning if they so choose.List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 326
This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 326 of the United States Reports:
Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945)
ICC v. Parker, 326 U.S. 60 (1945)
American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. United States, 326 U.S. 77 (1945)
Railway Mail Assn. v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 (1945)
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945)
Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U.S. 120 (1945)
Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945)
Barrett Line, Inc. v. United States, 326 U.S. 179 (1945)
Bailey v. Anderson, 326 U.S. 203 (1945)
Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 326 U.S. 207 (1945)
Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 326 U.S. 217 (1945) (per curiam)
Levers v. Anderson, 326 U.S. 219 (1945)
In re Michael, 326 U.S. 224 (1945)
East New York Sav. Bank v. Hahn, 326 U.S. 230 (1945)
United States v. Detroit & Cleveland Nav. Co., 326 U.S. 236 (1945)
General Electric Co. v. Jewel Incandescent Lamp Co., 326 U.S. 242 (1945)
Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co., 326 U.S. 249 (1945)
Glass City Bank v. United States, 326 U.S. 265 (1945)
Hawk v. Olson, 326 U.S. 271 (1945)
Better Business Bureau of Washington, D. C., Inc. v. United States, 326 U.S. 279 (1945)
Boehm v. Commissioner, 326 U.S. 287 (1945)
Gange Lumber Co. v. Rowley, 326 U.S. 295 (1945)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)
Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327 (1945)
Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340 (1945)
United States v. Rompel, 326 U.S. 367 (1945)
Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. Forrestal, 326 U.S. 371 (1945)
May Department Stores Co. v. NLRB, 326 U.S. 376 (1945)
Markham v. Cabell, 326 U.S. 404 (1945)
Hercules Gasoline Co. v. Commissioner, 326 U.S. 425 (1945)
Schenley Distillers Corp. v. United States, 326 U.S. 432 (1946) (per curiam)
Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438 (1946)
Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Duquesne Warehouse Co., 326 U.S. 446 (1946)
Chatwin v. United States, 326 U.S. 455 (1946)
Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465 (1946)
Commissioner v. Estate of Holmes, 326 U.S. 480 (1946)
Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490 (1946)
New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496 (1946)
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)
Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946)
John Kelley Co. v. Commissioner, 326 U.S. 521 (1946)
Mason v. Paradise Irrigation Dist., 326 U.S. 536 (1946)
Williams v. Green Bay & Western R. Co., 326 U.S. 549 (1946)
Railway Conductors v. Pitney, 326 U.S. 561 (1946)
New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572 (1946)
Kirby Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner, 326 U.S. 599 (1946)
Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607 (1946)
Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U.S. 620 (1946)
Allen v. Trust Co. of Ga., 326 U.S. 630 (1946)
United States v. New York Telephone Co., 326 U.S. 638 (1946)
Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling, 326 U.S. 657 (1946)United States antitrust law
United States Antitrust law is a collection of federal and state government laws that regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. (The concept is called competition law in other English-speaking countries.) The main statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These Acts, first, restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade. Second, they restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that could substantially lessen competition. Third, they prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power.The Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, state governments and private parties who are sufficiently affected may all bring actions in the courts to enforce the antitrust laws. The scope of antitrust laws, and the degree to which they should interfere in an enterprise's freedom to conduct business, or to protect smaller businesses, communities and consumers, are strongly debated. One view, mostly closely associated with the "Chicago School of economics" suggests that antitrust laws should focus solely on the benefits to consumers and overall efficiency, while a broad range of legal and economic theory sees the role of antitrust laws as also controlling economic power in the public interest.United States v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n
United States v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n, 224 U.S. 383 (1912), is the first case in which the United States Supreme Court held it a violation of the antitrust laws to refuse to a competitor access to a facility necessary for entering or remaining in the market (an "essential facility"). In this case a combination of firms carried out the restrictive practice, rather than a single firm. That made the conduct susceptible to challenge under section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) rather than under the heightened standard of section 2 of that act (15 U.S.C. § 2), but the case was brought under both sections.