{ "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-2026-10-10", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:e7268f", "proof": "sha256:ed91fa44a39cab5337d7f048cae49d81ccfdb06fc505eea44e9436b6ab732277", "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" }, "hash": "sha256:ed91fa44a39cab5337d7f048cae49d81ccfdb06fc505eea44e9436b6ab732277", "version": "legal-2026-10-10", "expires": "2026-10-11T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-10+legal-2026-10-10+2026-10-10T17:33:01", "content_hash": "sha256:ed91fa44a39cab5337d7f048cae49d81ccfdb06fc505eea44e9436b6ab732277", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-10T19:37:18.363Z", "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" }