## Facts

- The Milwaukee Braves played home games in Milwaukee from 1953–1965 under lease arrangements for a publicly owned county stadium.
- In October 1964, the Braves’ board resolved to move the franchise to Atlanta; the National League approved the move while requiring the Braves to play the 1965 season in Milwaukee and relocate in 1966.
- Wisconsin alleged the Braves, the National League, and other National League owners combined to restrain and monopolize “major league baseball in Wisconsin” in violation of Wisconsin antitrust law (then Wis. Stat. § 133.01) by agreeing to remove the franchise and preventing its return.
- The trial court found the National League and its clubs had effective control over major league participation, the number of teams, and home-game locations.
- The trial court found it feasible for the National League to expand and place a team in Milwaukee, and that Milwaukee County and a local baseball corporation had unsuccessfully sought a major league franchise.

## Issues

1. Whether Wisconsin antitrust law could be applied to National League franchise-location and membership decisions involving an interstate professional sports league.
2. Whether an injunction compelling the league to grant or facilitate a Milwaukee franchise and restricting the Braves from playing elsewhere unlawfully burdened interstate commerce or conflicted with controlling federal law or policy under the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the judgment and dissolved the injunction.
- The court held Wisconsin could not use its antitrust statute to prevent the Braves’ relocation, compel the National League to admit a Milwaukee franchise applicant, or condition the Braves’ ability to play elsewhere on creation of a Milwaukee replacement team.
- The court concluded the injunction would directly regulate and burden an interstate enterprise and risk conflicting state directives affecting league-wide operations beyond Wisconsin.

## Legal Principles

- State antitrust remedies cannot be used to control the structure of a nationally integrated interstate league—particularly franchise location and league membership—when such regulation would impose direct burdens on interstate commerce and create conflicting obligations across states.
- Where a state antitrust statute is interpreted in parallel with federal antitrust law, federal treatment of the subject matter may limit state enforcement that would restructure the relevant interstate market.
- Courts may treat federal judicial decisions and congressional inaction regarding professional baseball’s antitrust status as reflecting a federal policy that precludes state-law injunctions aimed at reallocating or compelling major league franchises.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that applying Wisconsin antitrust law to force or maintain a major league franchise in Milwaukee intruded into interstate commerce and conflicted with the federal approach to organized baseball, requiring reversal of the injunction against the Braves and the National League.


State v. Milwaukee Braves, Inc., 144 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 1966)