Are railroads subject to the Clayton Act or the Sherman Antitrust Act?
I had always thought no, but some have differing opinions. We’ll let the forum lawyers tackle that one.
What I’m interested in is why anti-trust empowerment is considered “regulation”? To me, regulation means having a government body setting rates, service parameters, et al, that sort of thing.
But would de facto enforcement of the Staggers Act competition caveats mean the railroads were suddenly being re-regulated?
49 USC 10706, regarding rates and rate agreements:
If the Board approves the agreement, it may be made and carried out under its terms and under the conditions required by the Board, and the Sherman Act …, the Clayton Act …, the Federal Trade Commission Act, …****, sections 73 and 74 of the Wilson Tariff Act … and the Act of June 19, 1936 do not apply to parties and other persons with respect to making or carrying out the agreement.
49 USC 11321:
(a) The authority of the Board [STB] under this subchapter is exclusive. A rail carrier or corporation participating in or resulting from a transaction approved by or exempted by the Board under this subchapter may carry out the transaction, own and operate property, and exercise control or franchises acquired through the transaction without the approval of a State authority. A rail carrier, corporation, or person participating in that approved or exempted transaction is exempt from the antitrust laws and from all other law, including State and municipal law, as necessary to let that rail carrier, corporation, or person carry out the transaction, hold, maintain, and operate property, and exercise control or franchises acquired through the transaction. However, if a purchase and sale, a lease, or a corporate consolidation or merger is involved in the transaction, the carrier or corporation may carry out the transaction only with the assent of a majority, or the number required under applicable State law, of the votes of the holders of the capital stock of that corporation entitled to vote. The vote must occur at a regular meeting, or special meeting called for that purpose, of those stockholders and the notice of the meeting must indicate its purpose.
One of the first cases the Supreme Court brought under the Sherman Antitrust Act was against the Northern Securities Company in 1904.