## Facts

- The City of Boulder, Colorado, is a home-rule municipality with constitutional authority over local affairs.
- Community Communications Company, Inc. (CCC) held an assigned municipal permit to operate a cable television system in Boulder.
- Technological improvements enabled CCC to expand service, and a potential competitor expressed interest in entering the Boulder cable market.
- Boulder enacted an emergency ordinance imposing a three-month moratorium that barred CCC from expanding its cable system while the city drafted a model cable ordinance and considered inviting new entrants.
- CCC sued in federal district court, alleging the moratorium violated § 1 of the Sherman Act and seeking to enjoin enforcement.
- Boulder argued the ordinance was immune from antitrust liability under the Parker v. Brown state-action doctrine.
- The district court rejected immunity and granted a preliminary injunction; the Tenth Circuit reversed; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a home-rule municipality’s cable-expansion moratorium is exempt from Sherman Act scrutiny under Parker state-action immunity.
2. Whether Colorado’s home-rule provisions constitute a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy authorizing the challenged anticompetitive restraint.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit.
- The Court held the moratorium ordinance was not exempt from federal antitrust scrutiny under Parker.
- The Court reaffirmed that municipal immunity requires action implementing a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy to displace competition, not merely a general grant of municipal authority.
- The district court’s conclusion that Boulder could be subject to antitrust liability (and its preliminary injunction) was effectively reinstated.

## Legal Principles

- Parker immunity applies only to state sovereign action, or to municipal action taken in furtherance of a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy.
- Municipalities are not sovereigns for Parker purposes; there is “no place for sovereign cities” within the doctrine’s federalism rationale.
- A state’s mere neutrality toward municipal regulation does not satisfy the “clear articulation and affirmative expression” requirement.
- A broad delegation of home-rule authority, without state contemplation and endorsement of the specific anticompetitive restraint, is insufficient to confer immunity.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Boulder’s home-rule status and general regulatory authority did not amount to a clearly articulated state policy to displace competition in the cable market, so the city’s moratorium was subject to Sherman Act scrutiny and not protected by Parker state-action immunity.


Cmty. Commc’ns Co. v. City of Boulder, 455 U.S. 40 (1982)