## Facts

- Alexander J. Salerno and William Valentine were discharged as umpires in the American League by its president, Joseph E. Cronin, who publicly attributed the discharge to “incompetence.”
- The umpires alleged the actual reason was retaliation for efforts to organize for collective bargaining.
- They filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB; the NLRB issued a complaint under NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) and sent the case to a trial examiner.
- The umpires separately sued alleging (1) federal antitrust violations under the Sherman and Clayton Acts and (2) state-law defamation.
- Only Commissioner of Baseball Bowie Kuhn was served; Kuhn moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The district court dismissed; on appeal, plaintiffs abandoned diversity jurisdiction and relied solely on federal question jurisdiction based on the antitrust claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated a cognizable federal antitrust claim against the Commissioner sufficient to support federal question jurisdiction.
2. Whether the court of appeals could treat professional baseball as subject to federal antitrust laws despite Supreme Court precedent recognizing a baseball antitrust exemption.
3. Whether the essentially labor-related nature of the dispute and the pending NLRB proceeding undermined the plausibility of an antitrust theory of causation and injury.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as to Kuhn.
- The court held that existing Supreme Court precedent continued to exempt professional baseball from federal antitrust law, and a lower court could not disregard that precedent.
- The court further stated that, even assuming antitrust law applied, the complaint did not adequately allege an antitrust violation causing plaintiffs’ injury, as the alleged conduct was fundamentally a retaliatory discharge dispute addressed by labor law.
- With no substantial federal claim and no diversity jurisdiction, the state defamation claim could not proceed in federal court.

## Legal Principles

- Lower federal courts must apply Supreme Court precedent recognizing professional baseball’s exemption from federal antitrust laws unless and until the Supreme Court or Congress changes it.
- A lower court may not treat Supreme Court doctrine as obsolete based on changed economic conditions.
- Federal question jurisdiction based on antitrust requires a plausible antitrust claim, including a clear causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the plaintiff’s injury.
- Disputes centered on retaliation for union organizing are ordinarily governed by federal labor law remedies (including NLRB processes) rather than antitrust theories.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld dismissal because binding Supreme Court authority required recognition of professional baseball’s antitrust exemption, and the umpires’ allegations—centered on retaliatory discharge for organizing—did not state a viable antitrust injury that could supply federal question jurisdiction.


Salerno v. Am. League of Pro. Baseball Clubs, 429 F.2d 1003 (2d Cir. 1970)