Spring 1984 – Issue 31 - Stanford Lawyer - Stanford University

nThe Zealots vs. the Wackoss:by Thomas]. CampbellAssociate Professor ofLawT'he Reagan administration'sapproach to antitrust enforcementhas stirred up a controversyover the ends and means oftrust-busting.Some of the issues involved wereraised in the brief opposing certiorariof Monsanto v. Sprayright, aresale price maintenance case setfor argument this December beforethe U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffwon at trial, and on appeal. Allwas going well for the plaintiff, evenafter a petition for certiorari wasfiled, until the Justice Departmentfiled a brief urging certiorari begranted and the case reversed.The respondent argued that thegovernment's brief was a treatise onwhat the law should be, and bore norelation to what the law was, or towhat the facts of this case were. Ifthe "zealots" in the antitrust divisionare intent on changing the law, thebrief continued, they should bringtheir theories to the Congress, andstay out of cases such as this.These respondents were relying,of course, on 72 years of SupremeCourt decision law dealing with verticalprice agreements. AssistantAttorney General William Baxter,who heads the Antitrust Divisionand holds a chair at Stanford LawSchool, * has a description for theSupreme Court decisions uponwhich the Sprayrite attorneys sodiligently rely: "esoteric, baseless,simply made up, wacko." Hence,the subtitle of this article, "TheZealots vs. the Wackos."Spring 1984 Stanford Lawyer 17