Supreme Court Upholds Antitrust Act in Northern Securities Co. v. United StatesHistorical
In Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a holding company formed to create a railroad monopoly violated the Sherman Antitrust Law. The government’s victory in the case helped solidify President Theodore Roosevelt’s reputation as a “trustbuster.”
The Facts of Northern Securities Co. v. United States
The Great Northern Railway Company and the Northern Pacific Railway Company owned, controlled and operated separate and competing lines of railway from the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean at Puget Sound. In 1901, Wall Street banker J.P. Morgan and railroad owner James J. Hill spearheaded the formation of a holding company, known as Northern Securities Co., that would hold the shares of the two companies.
The practical result was the consolidation of the competing railroad companies and a monopoly over the industry. In response, President Roosevelt directed the Department of Justice to file suit under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The federal statute, enacted in in 1890, prohibited [e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations,” and declared illegal attempts to monopolize such commerce or any part of it.
The Majority Decision on Northern Securities Co. v. United States
By a vote of 5-4, the Court held that Northern Securities Co. had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, finding that “the arrangement was an illegal combination in restraint of interstate commerce.” It further found that the holding company was formed with the intent to eliminate competition.
In reaching its decision, the Court wrestled with how far the federal government could go in regulating companies that stifled competition. The majority ultimately concluded that the federal government could rely on its power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the purchase of stocks in a company, rejecting the argument that it was exclusively a state issue.
“So long as Congress keeps within the limits of its authority as defined by the Constitution, infringing no rights recognized or secured by that instrument, its regulations of interstate and international commerce, whether founded in wisdom or not, must be submitted to by all,” Justice John M. Harlan wrote. “Harm, and only harm, can come from the failure of the courts to recognize this fundamental principle of constitutional construction.”
The majority also acknowledged that its decision would impact a growing corporate America. Justice Harlan wrote:
To depart from it because of the circumstances of special cases, or because the rule, in its operation, may possibly affect the interests of business, is to endanger the safety and integrity of our institutions and make the Constitution mean not what it says, but what interested parties wish it to mean at a particular time and under particular circumstances. The supremacy of the law is the foundation rock upon which our institutions rest.
The majority’s decision was the first to uphold the enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause also paved the way for further economic regulations.
The Dissent on Northern Securities Co. v. United States
Justices Holmes, Fuller, White, and Peckham all dissented. While their arguments differed, the dissenting justices disagreed with the majority’s holding that all restraints on trade were prohibited, whether unreasonable or not. As Justice White noted, all combinations, including those that help grow industries, have the tendency to reduce competition.
Supreme Court Tackles Bridgegate Scandal and Four Other Casesby DONALD SCARINCI on January 21, 2020
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kelly v. United States, the criminal case...
Supreme Court Kicks Off Second Half of 2019-2020 Termby DONALD SCARINCI on January 16, 2020
The Supreme Court is back in session, with the justices returning from their winter break on Januar...
Separation of Powers Under Morrison v. Olsonby DONALD SCARINCI on January 14, 2020
In Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the independent counsel pr...
- Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
- Freedom of Speech
- Freedoms of Press
- Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
- The Right to Bear Arms
- Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
- Due Process
- Eminent Domain
- Rights of Criminal Defendants
Preamble to the Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.