## Facts

- The City of Oakland invested public funds in stadium facilities and related infrastructure associated with the Oakland Raiders.
- The Raiders decided to relocate to Los Angeles to secure more favorable stadium and economic conditions.
- Oakland filed an eminent domain action seeking to condemn the Raiders’ NFL franchise (an intangible property interest) to prevent the relocation.
- Oakland’s plan was to acquire the franchise through condemnation and then transfer it to a local owner selected to keep professional football in Oakland.
- After a prior California Supreme Court decision allowed Oakland to attempt to prove a valid public use for condemning intangible property, the case returned to the trial court, where the Raiders asserted federal defenses, including the Commerce Clause and federal antitrust law.

## Issues

1. Whether condemning an NFL franchise to prevent relocation and transfer it to another private owner constitutes a “public use” under California eminent domain law.
2. Whether the proposed condemnation and resale of the franchise conflicts with federal antitrust policy by restraining competition in the market for professional football franchises.
3. Whether using eminent domain to keep a professional sports team from relocating imposes an impermissible burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause, and whether the City acted as a market participant or a regulator.

## Decision

- The court affirmed judgment for the Raiders, rejecting Oakland’s condemnation action.
- The court held the taking failed California’s public use requirement because the immediate objective was preventing a particular private enterprise from relocating and shifting it to a different private owner.
- The court held the plan conflicted with federal antitrust policy because it would restrain competition by forcing transfer of ownership and fixing the franchise’s location through governmental compulsion.
- The court held the condemnation violated the Commerce Clause because it burdened an interstate industry and threatened fragmented local control over team location.
- The court rejected Oakland’s argument that it was a market participant, concluding that exercising eminent domain is coercive governmental power and therefore regulatory for Commerce Clause purposes.

## Legal Principles

- A condemnation must satisfy “public use” limits; asserted public benefits do not suffice where the taking’s immediate aim is to block relocation of a private enterprise and transfer it to another private owner.
- State and local action, including condemnation schemes, may be invalid if it conflicts with federal antitrust policy by imposing restraints on competition in a private market.
- Professional football is interstate commerce due to multi-state travel, national scheduling, and interstate broadcasting and revenue arrangements; local measures that control franchise location can substantially burden interstate commerce.
- The market-participant exception does not apply where a municipality uses eminent domain; coercive acquisition is regulatory conduct subject to Commerce Clause scrutiny.
- A local action that invites widespread city-by-city control over team movement, impairing national organization of the league, can be invalid under the Commerce Clause when burdens outweigh local benefits.

## Conclusion

The court held Oakland could not use eminent domain to keep the Raiders from relocating because the proposed taking was not a proper public use and, independently, conflicted with federal antitrust policy and imposed an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause.


City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 220 Cal. Rptr. 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)