1. Should stare decisis be such a powerful doctrine that it trumps modern societal realities (such as baseball’s growing use of interstate commerce via radio and television)?

2. Why were the reserve clauses important to Flood’s argument?

3. Do you agree that, as a public policy matter, Major League Baseball should have an exemption from antitrust laws Why or why not?

Curt Flood was a professional baseball player who was traded by the St. Louis Cardinals to the Philadelphia Phillies. For a variety of reasons, Flood was unhappy with the trade; he refused to report to his new team and was forfeiting a significant salary. Flood sent a letter to Kuhn, the commissioner of Major League Baseball, demanding free agency. Kuhn declined to grant Flood free agency on the basis of the “reserve clause” in Flood’s contract. The reserve clause was a standard provision in every player’s contract whereby the player agreed that upon the contract’s expiration the rights to the player were retained by the team that originally signed him. As a practical matter, the clause allowed a team to retain the rights of a player indefinitely. Therefore, the clause prevented Flood from negotiating with another team and gave St. Louis the right to trade him to a new team or renew his contract. Flood sued Major League Baseball, contending that the reserve clauses in the contracts were illegal under the Sherman Act. Flood argued that the previous cases exempting baseball from antitrust laws should be reversed because modern-day baseball is now part of interstate commerce through radio and television broadcasts. 

The U.S. Supreme Court held for Kuhn and upheld the exemption primarily based on the doctrine of stare decisis. Although the Court acknowledged that it is reasonable to conclude that baseball is now engaged in interstate commerce, it did not reverse its earlier decisions because of what the Court concluded was Congress’s “positive inaction” to the earlier decisions exempting Major League
Baseball from the antitrust laws. The Court was unwilling to disturb 50 years of precedent when it was clear that Congress had adequate opportunity and yet did not act to introduce legislation intended to remediate the baseball exemption. The Court also made clear that no other professional sports could be considered exempt from antitrust law.

Congressional Silence  “The Court has emphasized that since 1922 baseball, with full and continuing congressional awareness, has been allowed to develop and to expand unhindered by federal legislative action. Remedial legislation has been introduced repeatedly in Congress but none has ever been enacted. The Court, accordingly, has concluded that Congress as yet has had no intention to subject baseball’s reserve system to the reach of the antitrust statutes. This, obviously, has been deemed to be something other than mere congressional silence and passivity.”