Jump to content

Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange

From Wikisource
Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange (1973)
Syllabus
4690126Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange — Syllabus1973
Court Documents
Concurring Opinion
Burger
Dissenting Opinions
Douglas
Marshall

Supreme Court of the United States

409 U.S. 289

Ricci  v.  Chicago Mercantile Exchange et al.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

No. 71-658.  Argued: October 18, 1972 --- Decided: January 9, 1973

Petitioner filed an antitrust complaint charging respondents with conspiring to restrain his business by transferring to another person petitioner's Chicago Mercantile Exchange membership, without notice and hearing, and in violation of Exchange rules and the Commodity Exchange Act. The District Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed but held that the antitrust action should be stayed.

Held: The Court of Appeals correctly determined that the antitrust proceedings should be stayed until the Commodity Exchange Commission can pass on the validity of respondents' conduct under the Commodity Exchange Act. Though the Commission cannot decide whether the Act and rules immunize conduct from the antitrust laws, the Commission's determination of whether the Exchange's rules were violated as petitioner claims or were followed required a factual determination within the special competence of the Commission. That determination will greatly aid the antitrust court in arriving at the essential accommodation between the antitrust and regulatory regimes. Pp. 298-308.

447 F.2d 713, affirmed.


WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 308. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 308. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS, STEWART, and POWELL, JJ., joined, post, p. 309.


Jerome H. Torshen argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Lawrence H. Eiger.

Lee A. Freeman argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for respondents Chicago Mercantile Exchange et al. was Lee A. Freeman, Jr. Max Chill, Herman Chill, and Charles B. Bernstein filed a brief for respondents Siegel Trading Co., Inc., et al.

Solicitor General Griswold, Acting Assistant Attorney General Comegys, Samuel Huntington, and Seymour H. Dussman filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal.