{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-24-2161-2025-12-23","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-24-2161-2025-12-23)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-14","fingerprint":"ewai:us:88b5b2","proof":"sha256:15f8f67239ddf1c0253f92b8438be5946afc78e4076016558543a97c83f0b902","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca4-24-2161-2025-12-23","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"PUBLISHED","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"No. 24-2161","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"CHERRY GROVE BEACH GEAR, LLC; DEREK CALHOUN;","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"JACQUELINE CALHOUN,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Plaintiffs - Appellants,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Defendant - Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:22-cv-02198-JD)","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Argued: October 22, 2025 Decided: December 23, 2025","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, GREGORY and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Diaz","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"and Judge Benjamin joined.","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"ARGUED: Kenneth Ray Moss, II, WRIGHT, WORLEY, POPE, EKSTER & MOSS,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellants. Elbert Stockman Dorn, Sr.,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"MAYNARD NEXSEN PC, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"George N. Spirakis, WRIGHT, WORLEY, POPE, EKSTER & MOSS, North Myrtle","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Beach, South Carolina, for Appellants. Marguerite S. Willis, Kirsten E. Small, Greenville,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"South Carolina, Michael Parente, MAYNARD NEXSEN PC, Columbia, South Carolina,","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"for Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-2161 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 10","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"GREGORY, Circuit Judge:","paragraph_id":"para_26","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"The City of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina prohibits most commercial","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"activities on its beaches. When Cherry Grove Beach Gear, LLC (“CGBG”) began to offer","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"beach equipment delivery and setup services on the City’s beaches, the City updated its","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"ordinances to clarify that only City officials were permitted to set up beach equipment","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"professionally on public beaches. CGBG brought this action against the City claiming","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, alleging that the City had unlawfully claimed a","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"monopoly over beach equipment delivery and installation. The district court granted","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"summary judgment for the City, concluding that the city enjoys state action immunity from","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"federal antitrust liability. We agree, and therefore we affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"I.","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Plaintiff/Appellants Derek and Jacqueline Calhoun own and operate Cherry Grove","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Beach Gear, LLC. Beginning in 2020, CGBG offered beach chairs, beach umbrellas, and","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"other beach wares for rent to use on beaches in and around the City of North Myrtle Beach.","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"CGBG also provided the opportunity to purchase equipment setup services, wherein","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"CGBG would deliver the equipment to the beach and set it up for the customer’s use.","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"In April 2021, city officials informed CGBG that the City Code prohibited CGBG","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"from delivering and setting up rented beach equipment on City beaches. CGBG continued","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"its delivery and setup services, believing that the cited ordinance did not prohibit its","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"activities. The City warned CGBG at least twice more, to no avail. J.A. 43, 48. CGBG","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"competitors complained about CGBG’s continued beach-equipment setup. J.A. 77, 290,","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-2161 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 10","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"293–96. In response, the City passed an additional ordinance in June 2022 that both parties","paragraph_id":"para_49","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"agree prohibited CGBG from setting up beach equipment on the beach. Under the 2022","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"ordinance, only City officials may professionally set up rented beach equipment on City","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"beaches. CGBG continued their delivery and setup services. J.A. 225. The City issued","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"Derek Calhoun and CGBG multiple citations for noncompliance with the ordinances. J.A.","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"225, 127–30.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"CGBG brought suit in July 2022 alleging, among other claims, that the City had","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"“unlawfully sought to impose an unlawful monopoly on the rentals of beach chairs, beach","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"umbrellas and related beach wares on the entirety of the beaches” in the City, in violation","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"of federal antitrust law. J.A. 18–19. At summary judgment, the district court ruled that","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"the City’s ordinance receives state-action immunity from federal antitrust enforcement.","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Shaw v. Foreman, 59","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"F.4th 121, 129 (4th Cir. 2023).","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"II.","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"Under the state action immunity doctrine—or Parker doctrine—federal antitrust","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"laws do “not apply to anticompetitive restraints imposed by the States ‘as an act of","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"government.’” City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advert., Inc., 499 U.S. 365, 370 (1991)","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"(quoting Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 352 (1943)). However, cities “are not themselves","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"sovereign,” and therefore state action immunity takes hold only when cities act “pursuant","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"to state policy to displace competition with regulation or monopoly public service.” FTC","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., 568 U.S. 216, 225 (2013); City of Lafayette v. La.","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-2161 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 3 of 10","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"Power & Light Co., 435 U.S. 389, 413 (1978). The state policy relied upon need not be","paragraph_id":"para_72","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"“specific, detailed legislative authorization,” but it must be “clearly articulated and","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"affirmatively expressed.” Cmty. Commc’ns Co. v. City of Boulder, 455 U.S. 40, 51 (1982);","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"City of Lafayette, 435 U.S. at 415.","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"The Supreme Court has clarified “just how clearly a state policy must be articulated","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"for a municipality to be able to establish that its anticompetitive activity constitutes state","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"action.” W. Star Hosp. Auth. v. City of Richmond, 986 F.3d 354, 358 (4th Cir. 2021)","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"(quoting Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34, 40 (1985)). State immunity","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"attaches “where anticompetitive activity is the ‘foreseeable result’ of a state policy—that","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"is, where it is ‘clear that anticompetitive effects logically would result’ from a given policy","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"or where a regulatory structure inherently displaces unfettered business freedom.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"(quoting Hallie, 471 U.S. at 42). But a legislature need not “expressly state in a statute or","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"its legislative history that the legislature intends for the delegated action to have","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"anticompetitive effects.” Id. (quoting Hallie, 471 U.S. at 43). The balance between federal","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"antitrust law and state sovereignty is designed to “preserv[e] to the states their freedom . . .","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"to administer state regulatory policies free of the inhibitions of the federal antitrust laws","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"without at the same time permitting purely parochial interest to disrupt the Nation’s free-","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"market goals.” Hallie, 471 U.S. at 39 (quoting City of Lafayette, 435 U.S. at 415-16).","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"For state action immunity to attach, the state legislature must have anticipated","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"significant municipal involvement in an industry. Supreme Court precedent makes clear","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"that a general grant of “home rule” authority is insufficiently specific to earn state-action","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"immunity. City of Boulder, 455 U.S. at 56. In FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-2161 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 4 of 10","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"the Supreme Court considered municipal efforts to consolidate hospital ownership pursuant","paragraph_id":"para_96","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"to a state statute authorizing hospital authorities to purchase other hospitals. Phoebe Putney,","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"568 U.S. 216, 220–21. Though the statute plainly anticipated that substate actors would be","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"involved in the market, the “simple permission to play in a market does not foreseeably","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"entail permission to roughhouse in that market unlawfully.” Id. at 231 (internal quotations","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"omitted). In Phoebe Putney, though the hospital authorities were granted broad authority","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"to acquire other hospitals, this authority “mirror[ed] generally powers routinely conferred","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"by state law upon private corporations.” Id. at 227. Since powers afforded to private entities","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"generally do not raise antitrust concerns, the Court held that the state legislature did not","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"anticipate these powers would authorize anticompetitive conduct. Id. at 228.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"However, a “broad authority to regulate” a particular industry demonstrates","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"sufficient intent to displace the antitrust laws. Hallie, 471 U.S. at 42. In Town of Hallie v.","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"City of Eau Claire, the Supreme Court considered whether state statutes allowing a","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"municipality to refuse to provide sewage treatment to neighboring areas authorized","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"anticompetitive action; specifically, the municipality attempted to leverage its sewage-","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"treatment services into monopolies over sewage collection and transportation. Id. at 36–","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"37. Though the statutes made “no express mention of anticompetitive conduct,” the Court","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"determined that the anticompetitive conduct was a logical result of the authority to withhold","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"sewage treatment services. Id. at 41–42. Similarly, in City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"Advertising, Inc., state statutes that delegated zoning authority were held to be a sufficiently","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"clear articulation of state policy to allow a city to protect a billboard provider against","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"competition. Omni, 499 U.S. at 372–73. State authorization to enact zoning regulations","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-2161 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 5 of 10","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"created sufficiently foreseeable anticompetitive conduct because “[t]he very purpose of","paragraph_id":"para_120","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"zoning regulation is to displace unfettered business freedom in a manner that regularly has","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"the effect of preventing normal acts of competition.” Id. at 373.","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"We recently contemplated a state action immunity question in Western Star Hospital","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Authority, Inc. v. City of Richmond, 986 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2021). The Virginia legislature","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"conferred on a local governmental agency the power to provide ambulance services in the","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"City of Richmond. Id. at 357. It also granted that agency various regulatory powers","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"including the right to “make it unlawful to operate EMS vehicles without a permit, control","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"the issuance of permits, determine where EMS vehicles can and cannot operate, and fix the","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"prices of EMS vehicle services.” Id. at 358–59. These powers extended well beyond","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"“simple permission to play in a market” and instead “greenlight[ed] regulation and service","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"provision that necessarily supplant[ed] unrestrained market competition.” Id. Even though","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"the statute did not explicitly grant the agency monopoly power, we emphasized that the","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"state statute “expressly authorized” the local authority to “control entry into the EMS","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"vehicle services market.” Id. at 359. As a result, this Court permitted the substate agency’s","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"monopoly over EMS vehicle services. Id. at 357–59.","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"III.","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"Appellants raise two arguments on appeal. First, they argue that neither of the state","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"statutes upon which the City and the district court relied are sufficiently clear articulations","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"of state policy, and therefore state action immunity does not attach. Second, they urge this","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"Court to adopt a “market participant exception” to state action immunity, which would","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-2161 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 6 of 10","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"withhold state action immunity from the City because it “is engaged in the market as a","paragraph_id":"para_143","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"participant and not in a regulatory capacity.” Opening Br. 9. Western Star forecloses both","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"lines of argument.","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"Two state statutes are relevant to the state-action immunity analysis. The first","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"articulates general municipal powers, including the authority to “grant franchises and make","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"charges for the use of public beaches.” S.C. Code Ann. § 5-7-30. The second and more","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"comprehensive state statute permits a municipality to enter into a contract with a private","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"company to provide beach safety services. S.C. Code Ann. § 5-7-145. If a municipality","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"elects to provide beach safety services by agreement with a private company, “the","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"municipality may grant the exclusive right to the beach safety company to rent only the","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"beach equipment and sell only the items to the public on the beach that are allowed by the","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"municipality.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"Our decision in Western Star makes clear that the City is entitled to state action","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"immunity. 986 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2021). As the district court correctly pointed out, S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"Code §§ 5-7-30 and 5-7-145 “leave no doubt as to the City’s prerogative to exclusively","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"provide on-beach setup and rentals to support lifeguard services and displace competition.”","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"Cherry Grove Beach Gear, LLC v. City of North Myrtle Beach, 2024 WL 6841760 (D.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"Sept. 6, 2024). The South Carolina Code authorizes the City to provide “lifeguard and","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"other safety related services on and along the public beaches” with either “municipal","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"employees or by service agreement with a private beach safety company.” S.C. Code § 5-","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"7-145. The statute clarifies that the “services” which the municipality may provide or","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-2161 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 7 of 10","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"contract out include “the exclusive right . . . to rent . . . beach equipment . . . on the beach.”","paragraph_id":"para_167","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"S.C. Code § 5-7-145. This provision licenses the City to grant an exclusive franchise to","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"sell beach equipment on the beach. Section 5-7-30 confirms that the City has the authority","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"to grant franchises for operations on public beaches. S.C. Code § 5-7-30.","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"CGBG does not dispute that Section 5-7-145 authorizes the City to displace","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"competition by granting an exclusive franchise for beach equipment installation. Instead,","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"CGBG argues that the statute does not permit the City to effectively grant itself the","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"exclusive franchise, and the monopoly must instead belong to a private company.","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"This argument fails in light of Western Star. In that case, as in this one, the state","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"legislature had explicitly granted a substate governmental agency the right to play a role in","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"ambulance services and to implement anticompetitive regulations, but it did not explicitly","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"grant the right to monopolize the market. W. Star, 986 F.3d at 356–57. However, the","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"statute plainly anticipated that the City of Richmond could regulate in such a way that","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"“necessarily supplant[ed] unrestrained market competition,” and therefore the state policy","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"was sufficiently articulated for the defendants to claim state action immunity. Id. at 359.","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"That follows from the Supreme Court’s opinions in Hallie and Omni, in which state statutes","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"did not expressly authorize the action taken, but made sufficiently clear that the state","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"anticipated the municipality would play an anticompetitive role in the market. The state","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"must have “affirmatively contemplated the displacement of competition,” but it is not","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"“expected to catalog all of the anticipated effects of a statute.” Phoebe Putney, 568 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"at 229; Hallie, 471 U.S. at 43. Where the City has the authority to establish an exclusive","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"franchise, the state has created a “regulatory structure [that] inherently displace[d]","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-2161 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 8 of 10","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"unfettered business freedom.” W. Star, 986 F.3d at 358. When a state grants a municipality","paragraph_id":"para_191","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"the authority to establish a monopoly, it has plainly contemplated the displacement of","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"competition.","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"Because the state statute anticipates the City playing an anticompetitive role in the","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"market for on-beach equipment rentals, the City qualifies for state-action immunity from","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"federal antitrust law. The South Carolina legislature authorized the City to impose a","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"monopoly on beach equipment installation, so the City’s monopoly does not constitute","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"unexpected anticompetitive behavior. Indeed, it is the “very purpose” of Section 5-7-145","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"to “displace unfettered business freedom.” Omni, 499 U.S. at 373.","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"CGBG also claims that Supreme Court precedent establishes an exception to state","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"action immunity when “the State acts not in a regulatory capacity but as a commercial","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"participant in the relevant market.” Opening Br. 7 (citing Omni, 499 U.S. at 374–75).","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"Since the City has anointed itself the sole participant in the market for setting up beach","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"equipment, CGBG argues that state action immunity should not apply.","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"However, “[t]he Supreme Court has never recognized such an exception; in fact, it","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"has suggested only that it might possibly exist.” W. Star, 986 F.3d at 360 (citing Omni,","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"499 U.S. at 379). In Western Star, we emphasized that the Supreme Court permitted state","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"action immunity in Hallie even though the municipality was acting as a market participant,","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"and therefore we “decline[d]” the invitation “to steer federal antitrust law into uncharted","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"waters.” Id. CGBG has provided no argument that we should reconsider that conclusion.","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-2161 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 9 of 10","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"CGBG urges us to hold that the district court’s error on the antitrust claim triggered","paragraph_id":"para_214","court_paragraph":10},{"text":"errors with respect to other claims. But CGBG’s threadbare arguments fall short of Federal","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"Rule of Appellate Procedure 28’s requirements, so we must consider them abandoned.","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). And because we","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"find no error in the district court’s handling of CGBG’s antitrust claim, we have no cause","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"to address other issues.","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"IV.","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"AFFIRMED.","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-2161 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 10 of 10","paragraph_id":"para_223"}],"word_count":2559,"cites":["499 U.S. 365","317 U.S. 341","568 U.S. 216","435 U.S. 389","455 U.S. 40","471 U.S. 34","59\nF.4th 121","986 F.3d 354","178 F.3d 231"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"7d5612d208000550223ad285211ac59cf5805c4e538131aa95584023a6a76b2e","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca4-24-02161/pdf/USCOURTS-ca4-24-02161-0.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-01T12:47:40.982+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca4-24-2161-2025-12-23","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca4-24-2161-2025-12-23","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca4-24-2161-2025-12-23","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca4-24-2161-2025-12-23","verification":{"stored_sha256":"7d5612d208000550223ad285211ac59cf5805c4e538131aa95584023a6a76b2e","recomputed_sha256":"7d5612d208000550223ad285211ac59cf5805c4e538131aa95584023a6a76b2e","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-14T15:05:17.359Z"}},"hash":"sha256:15f8f67239ddf1c0253f92b8438be5946afc78e4076016558543a97c83f0b902","version":"legal-2026-10-14","expires":"2026-10-15T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-14+legal-2026-10-14+2026-10-14T14:02:10","content_hash":"sha256:15f8f67239ddf1c0253f92b8438be5946afc78e4076016558543a97c83f0b902","revalidate_after":"2026-10-14T16:05:17.546Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-24-2161-2025-12-23","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca4-24-2161-2025-12-23"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca4-24-2161-2025-12-23"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca4-24-2161-2025-12-23"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca4-24-2161-2025-12-23","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-b21f01d7657a3d15549de7e3f2a4f4ee","response_hash":"sha256:15f8f67239ddf1c0253f92b8438be5946afc78e4076016558543a97c83f0b902"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T17:33:01.855Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca4-24-2161-2025-12-23&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":10684}}