Supreme Court rejects San Jose appeal over Athletics’ move

WASHINGTON (KRON) – The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from San Jose in the city’s bid to lure baseball’s Athletics from Oakland.

The justices on Monday left in place lower court rulings that dismissed the city’s antitrust claims against Major League Baseball, which blocked the Athletics’ move to San Jose.

San Jose sued MLB in June 2013 for conspiring to block the relocation. San Jose is in Santa Clara County, part of the San Francisco Giants’ territory under MLB’s constitution. The city said the territory rules violated federal antitrust laws. Baseball has been exempt from antitrust laws since a 1922 Supreme Court decision.

In its now-rejected appeal, San Jose asked the Supreme Court to take a new look at the doctrine and either overturn it or narrow its scope.

The city previously lost its case before a federal trial judge in San Jose in 2013 and then before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in January.

Both courts said they were bound by a 1922 decision in which the Supreme Court said “the business of baseball” was not subject to federal antitrust law because it was not part of interstate commerce, as then defined. The trial and circuit judges said only the high court could change the precedent.

The Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine in 1954 and 1972, while acknowledging it was “an anomaly” that baseball is the only professional sport exempt from the laws.

In its appeal for a new review, San Jose argued the exemption was unfair, harmed consumers, and was being applied by MLB far more broadly — for example to broadcast and digital media rights — than the Supreme Court could have envisioned in 1922.

The city’s lawsuit claimed MLB was violating antitrust laws in two ways in its alleged blocking of San Jose’s proposal to have the A’s move to a new stadium in that city.

One way was MLB’s territorial rights rule, under which the San Francisco Giants club could veto an A’s move to the South Bay and could be overridden only by a three-fourths vote of all clubs.

The second claim was alleged stalling by an MLB relocation committee assigned to study a possible move.

Associated Press & Bay City News contributed to this article

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s