Whether settlement agreements may immunize ongoing restraints on competition from private enforcement under the federal antitrust laws by releasing certain claims for injunctive relief that accrue after the settlement's effective date

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has long stated that “a prospective waiver of a party’s right to pursue statutory remedies for antitrust violations” would violate federal antitrust laws. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 637 n.19 (1985) (citing Lawlor v. Nat'l Screen Serv., 349 U.S. 322, 329 (1955)). And the United States has taken the position that it is “well-established that parties may not prospectively waive the protections of the antitrust laws.” U.S. Amicus Br., Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 12-133, 2018 WL 367051, at *20 (U.S. Jan. 29, 2013). Respondents nevertheless agreed to settle antitrust claims against the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and its members for a prospective release of “indivisible injunctive relief” for over 100 million members of a mandatory Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class. App.10a. Over the objections of Petitioner Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the approval of the $2.67 billion class settlement—with $675 million in plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees—holding that “no public policy prohibits prospective releases in antitrust cases,” including when the release “perpetuate[s] conduct” challenged as anticompetitive. App. 18a. That categorical ruling conflicts with the rulings of other circuits, contravenes this Court’s precedents, and undermines well-established antitrust enforcement policy. The question presented is: Whether settlement agreements may immunize ongoing restraints on competition from private enforcement under the federal antitrust laws by releasing certain claims for injunctive relief that accrue after the settlement’s effective date.