## Facts

- A group of eastern railroads and their trade association retained a public relations firm to conduct a coordinated publicity and political campaign opposing long-distance trucking.
- Trucking companies and their trade association alleged the campaign was designed to destroy trucking as a competitor by generating hostile public opinion and securing governmental action unfavorable to truckers.
- The railroads’ campaign included a “third-party” technique that presented propaganda as if it were independent grassroots sentiment.
- Truckers sued for treble damages and injunctive relief under the Clayton Act, alleging the railroads conspired to restrain trade and monopolize in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
- The district court entered judgment for the truckers, awarded damages, and enjoined the campaign; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether attempts to influence the passage, enforcement, or administration of laws can constitute a Sherman Act violation.
2. Whether coordinated lobbying and publicity efforts aimed at inducing legislative or executive action are an unlawful “combination” or “conspiracy” in restraint of trade.
3. Whether deceptive or ethically questionable lobbying tactics remove petitioning activity from antitrust immunity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed.
- No Sherman Act violation may be based on “mere attempts to influence” legislative or executive action.
- Joint efforts to persuade government officials to adopt or enforce laws, even if intended to harm competitors or produce monopoly conditions, are not prohibited by the Sherman Act when directed to obtaining governmental action.
- The use of deceptive publicity techniques did not, by itself, convert the petitioning campaign into an antitrust violation.

## Legal Principles

- The Sherman Act targets restraints imposed through market conduct, not political efforts to secure governmental action.
- The Act is construed to avoid conflict with the First Amendment right to petition the government.
- Anticompetitive intent and incidental competitive injury from successful (or attempted) lobbying do not create Sherman Act liability when the conduct consists of genuine efforts to influence government decisionmaking.
- Antitrust law is not a general mechanism for policing the ethics of political advocacy.

## Conclusion

The Court held that coordinated lobbying and related publicity directed at influencing legislative or executive action is immune from Sherman Act liability, even when undertaken with anticompetitive aims and deceptive public relations methods, because such petitioning lies outside the Act’s scope and implicates the constitutional right to petition.


E. R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961)