MLB Antitrust Suit Invokes Alston, Dobbs in Bid for SCOTUS Review
A federal magistrate recommended dismissal of a lawsuit brought by three former minor league players against Major League Baseball on Wednesday, but a likely appeal of the case could eventually move MLB’s antitrust exemption back in front of the Supreme Court.
Concepcion et al. v. MLB—a lawsuit over minor leaguers’ wages that brought into question MLB’s antitrust status—was recommended for dismissal in a 30-page ruling by Judge Bruce McGiverin, a federal magistrate in Puerto Rico. The case could be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston.
More from Sportico.com
Diamond CEO Preschlack Takes Stand as MLB Fields Padres' Media Duties
Jones, DeChambeau Officially Leave LIV Golf v. PGA Tour Lawsuit
If Concepcion is appealed in the First Circuit, it will be playing out at the same time as another MLB antitrust case, Nostalgic Partners et al. v. MLB. The Nostalgic Partners lawsuit was brought by minor league teams, and is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.
Conflicting appellate rulings in Concepcion and Nostalgic Partners would increase the odds of review by the Supreme Court, which has grown critical of the exemption.
Daniel Concepcion, Aldemar Burgos and Sidney Duprey-Conde were minor leaguers in the Kansas City Royals, San Diego Padres, and San Francisco Giants organizations, respectively, during the 2010s. They insist MLB and its teams unlawfully conspired to restrain MiLB player pay through a uniform player contract, which, per a reserve clause, teams can renew year-to-year for up to six years. The three players say they were paid less than $15,000 per year despite working about 60 hours per week during the season.
In his opinion this week, Judge McGiverin identified several problems with the players’ case. He dismissed the antitrust claims of Concepcion, who last played in 2016, because they are time barred by the statute of limitations. McGiverin also dismissed the players’ Fair Labor Standards’ Act claims because of the Save America’s Pastime Act of 2018, a federal law that denies FLSA protections to MiLB players.
McGiverin devoted much of the opinion to addressing the players’ attack on the antitrust exemption.
The Supreme Court created the exemption in 1922 through Federal Baseball Club v. National League. Judges have since upheld the exemption via the principle of “stare decisis,” which is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” But they have repeatedly rejected attempts to extend the exemption to other leagues and sports. In 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Curt Flood Act, which eliminated MLB’s antitrust exemption as it pertains to MLB players but affirmed it for MiLB players and other topics.
“Undeterred” by precedent, McGiverin wrote, the three players nonetheless contend the exemption “lacks merit.” They cite the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in NCAA v. Alston and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization for support.
In the unanimous 9-0 opinion against the NCAA, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch described MLB’s exemption as illogical, stressing there are “acknowledged criticisms of the [1922] decision as ‘unrealistic’ and ‘inconsistent’” and “aberrational.” The players believe Gorsuch’s critical choice of words “signals the Supreme Court is ready to eliminate baseball’s antitrust exemption” if given the chance.
“Maybe so,” McGiverin wrote. “But that is not a decision this court can make.”
McGiverin was similarly unpersuaded by the players’ reliance on Dobbs, where last year the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, found there is no federal constitutional right to abortion, thereby leaving the legality of abortions to each state. The players analogized Dobbs to their case in that Justice Samuel Alito found stare decisis does not justify upholding “egregiously wrong” decisions previously issued by the Supreme Court and, as they see it, Federal Baseball Club was egregiously wrong, too.
“Even accepting that argument,” McGiverin reasoned, “nothing in Dobbs authorizes lower courts, such as this one, to overrule Supreme Court precedent.”
The players also draw from the Department of Justice filing statements of interest in Nostalgic Partners. As detailed by Sportico, while the DOJ doesn’t side against MLB, it wants clarification from the courts as to whether, and how, the exemption still applies 101 years after its creation. The DOJ notes that “relevant market realties,” including TV, “have changed dramatically” since 1922, and a contemporary look at the exemption is merited. U.S. senators have recently voiced similar viewpoints.
McGiverin’s recommendation will be reviewed by U.S. District Judge Maria Antongiorgi-Jordan. If Antongiorgi-Jordan signs off, Concepcion v. MLB will be dismissed, and the three players can appeal to the First Circuit.
