Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
American Airlines Group Inc. v. United States, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, No. 23-1802 · judgment November 8, 2024
Before the decision, about 2.1× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a First Circuit decision below, and a business petitioner, and down for a petition filed soon after the judgment below.
Questions presented
Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits “unreasonable restraint[s] on competition.” Leegin Creative Leather Prods, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877, 885 (2007) (citation omitted). Because courts have long recognized their procompetitive potential, joint ventures are subject to antitrust law’s “rule of reason.” National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69, 96-97 (2021). Under this three-step framework, (1) a plaintiff must first prove “‘the challenged restraint has a substantial anticompetitive effect’”; (2) if the plaintiff carries that initial burden, “the burden then ‘shifts to the defendant to show a procompetitive rationale for the restraint’”; and (3) if the defendant “make[s] that showing, ‘the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the procompetitive efficiencies could be reasonably achieved through less anticompetitive means.’” Id. (quoting Ohio v. American Express Co., 585 U.S. 529, 541-42 (2018)). This inquiry aims to ensure that courts prohibit only agreements “that are harmful to the consumer.” Id. at 96 (citation omitted). The questions presented are:
-
Whether, absent evidence of a marketwide price increase or output reduction, a reduction in competition between two members to a joint venture is sufficient to prove a substantial anticompetitive effect at step one of the rule of reason.
-
Whether, to meet its burden at step two of the rule of reason, a defendant must disprove other potential causes for the asserted procompetitive benefits and prove that the asserted procompetitive benefits were not offset by out-of-market anticompetitive effects.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Gregory George Garre
Latham & Watkins LLP
For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
Proceedings
- Jun 30 2025Petition DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.
- Jun 10 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/26/2025.
- Jun 10 2025Reply of petitioner American Airlines Group Inc. filed. (Distributed)
- May 27 2025Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
- May 27 2025Brief of State Respondents in opposition filed.
- Apr 23 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 27, 2025, for all respondents.
- Apr 21 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 2, 2025 to May 27, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Apr 03 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 2, 2025, for all respondents.
- Apr 02 2025Motion of the Acting Solicitor General to extend the time to file a response from April 2, 2025 to May 2, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Apr 02 2025Brief amicus curiae of International Center for Law & Economics filed.
- Mar 18 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 2, 2025, for all respondents.
- Mar 17 2025Motion of the State respondents to extend the time to file a response from April 2, 2025 to May 2, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 27 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 2, 2025)
- Jan 29 2025Application (24A745) granted by Justice Jackson extending the time to file until February 27, 2025.
- Jan 27 2025Application (24A745) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 6, 2025 to February 27, 2025, submitted to Justice Jackson.