Cherry Grove Beach Gear, LLC, et al. v. City of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

Whether the market participant exception to state action immunity should be adopted under the facts of this case, specifically where the municipality is the sole market participant.

W het her t he u nderly i ng opi n ion of t he Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erodes the clear articulation test and parker immunity jurisprudence as developed by this Court

Whether this Court should clarify that, when a municipality uses legislative power to exclude rivals while it provides the challenged service as a commercial provider, the clear-articulation requirement must be applied with heightened rigor to prevent “simple permission to participate” from being converted into authorization to monopolize. (These questions arise under, inter alia, Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943); City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U.S. 389 (1978); Cmty. Commc’ns Co. v. City of Boulder, 455 U.S. 40 (1982); Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34 (1985); FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., 568 U.S. 216 (2013); City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc, 499 U.S. 365, 111 S.Ct. 1344, 113 L.Ed.2d 382 (1991).