Does the LGAA entitle local government officials to immunity from antitrust damages when they act unlawfully?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented include the following: 1. Does the LGAA entitle local government officials to immunity from antitrust damages when they act unlawfully? 2. Does a Court of Appeals impermissibly depart from long-established legal teachings of this Court when it: a. Fails to believe a summary judgment nonmovant’s evidence on disputed issues of material fact and fails to presume the non-movant’s version of such disputed factual issues is correct? b. Fails to place on the parties asserting antitrust immunity the burden of establishing their entitlement to it but, rather, imposes on their opponent the burden of disproving such entitlement? c. Finds Noerr-Pennington antitrust immunity to exist based simply on an assumption which conflicts with the facts that the parties asserting the defense presented no evidence of engaging in government petitioning activity and expressly denied ever having done so? This Petition principally concerns the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding immunity of local government officials from damages under the Local Government Antitrust Act (“LGAA”). In pertinent part, it establishes li QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued that they are not deprived of LGAA protection from antitrust damages when they act unlawfully by violating an express prohibition against engaging in the very conduct being challenged as anticompetitive. That conflicts with the landmark decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 36 years ago in Sandcrest Outpatient Servs., PA. v. Cumberland Cnty. Hosp. Sys., 853 F.2d 1139, 1145 & n. 7, 1148 (4th Cir. 1988), holding — based on Congressional intent derived from the act’s legislative history — that local officials’ actions must be lawful in order to qualify for LGAA immunity.’ It thus creates a split between the circuits on an exceptionally important question of antitrust immunity under the LGAA which this Court has not previously addressed but should now resolve. This Petition also concerns the Tenth Circuit decision’s several radical deviations from long-standing precedents of this Court relating to antitrust immunity and summary judgment evidentiary standards. It so far departs from those teachings as to necessitate this Court’s exercise of its supervisory power to secure and maintain the uniformity of its decisions and the clarity of long-established law. ' Tt also conflicts with the Tenth Circuit=s own prior decision 19 years ago in GF Gaming Corp. v. City of Blackhawk, 405 F.3d 876, 885 (10th Cir. 2005), in the same respect.