October Term 2012 · Docket 11-1160
Does a state charter authorizing property acquisition exempt a hospital from antitrust laws?
The FTC argues a Georgia hospital violated antitrust laws. The hospital claims state law protected its actions.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Benjamin Horwich argued the state action doctrine provides a defense. He stated the state must clearly articulate intent to displace competition.
Waxman argued the Georgia legislature adopted a model of local public choice. He stated this model includes the choice to reduce or eliminate competition.
Chief Justice Roberts asked about the difference between acquiring properties to fulfill or promote a mission.
Justice Scalia questioned whether general corporate powers allow ignoring the Sherman Act.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Federal Trade Commission sued a Georgia hospital system. The FTC claims the hospital illegally acquired a competitor. The hospital argues state law authorized the move. The case tests the limits of state action doctrine.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 26, 2012.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
The FTC wants the Court to reject the state action defense. It seeks to hold the hospital liable for antitrust violations.
The hospital wants the Court to uphold the state action defense. It seeks to keep the lower court ruling intact.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
What each side says
The FTC argues the state did not clearly articulate intent to displace competition. It contends the general charter language is insufficient for immunity.
The hospital argues the Georgia legislature adopted a model of local public choice. It contends this choice includes the power to reduce competition.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if normal corporate charters contain authority to acquire property.
Justice Scalia asked if this enables all corporations to ignore the Sherman Act.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-11
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of state action doctrine. It determines when state law shields private entities from federal antitrust enforcement. The outcome shapes the balance between state regulatory power and federal market competition laws.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.