|
|
Fisher v. City of Berkeley, 475 U.S. 260 (1986)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Fisher v. City of Berkeley, 475 U.S. 260 (1986)
Fisher v. City of Berkeley No. 84-1538 Argued November 12, 1985 Decided February 26, 1986 475 U.S. 260
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Syllabus
A Berkeley, California, ordinance, enacted pursuant to popular initiative, imposes rent ceilings on residential real property in the city. The rent ceilings are under the control of a Rent Stabilization Board. Appellant landlords brought suit in California Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance on Fourteenth Amendment grounds and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Superior Court upheld the ordinance, but was reversed by the California Court of Appeal. In the meantime, based on the intervening decision in Community Communications Co. v. Boulder, 455 U.S. 40, the question arose as to whether the ordinance was unconstitutional because it was preempted by the Sherman Act. The California Supreme Court held that there was no conflict between the ordinance and the Sherman Act.
Held: The ordinance is not unconstitutional as being preempted by the Sherman Act. Pp. 264-270.
(a) The rent ceilings established by the ordinance and maintained by the Rent Stabilization Board were unilaterally imposed by the city upon landlords to the exclusion of private control. Thus, the rent ceilings lack the element of concerted action needed before they can be characterized as a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. A restraint imposed unilaterally by government does not become concerted action within the meaning of § 1 simply because it has a coercive effect upon parties who must obey the law. And the mere fact that all competing landlords must comply with the ordinance is not enough to establish a conspiracy among landlords. Pp. 265-267.
(b) While the ordinance gives tenants some power to trigger its enforcement, it places complete control over maximum rent levels exclusively in the Rent Stabilization Board’s hands. Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U.S. 384, and California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97, distinguished. Pp. 267-270.
37 Cal.3d 644, 693 P.2d 261, affirmed.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 270. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 274.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Fisher v. City of Berkeley, 475 U.S. 260 (1986) in 475 U.S. 260 475 U.S. 261. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ECXMP9P197HI9ER.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Fisher v. City of Berkeley, 475 U.S. 260 (1986), in 475 U.S. 260, page 475 U.S. 261. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ECXMP9P197HI9ER.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Fisher v. City of Berkeley, 475 U.S. 260 (1986). cited in 1986, 475 U.S. 260, pp.475 U.S. 261. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ECXMP9P197HI9ER.
|