No. 24-124
Brent Brewbaker v. United States
Tags: 5th-amendment-6th-amendment'\n\n'Did the court of antitrust-law appellate-review article-1 constitutional-challenge constitutional-error criminal-law criminal-procedure criminal-statute due-process fifth-amendment harmless-error jury-instructions presumption sherman-act sixth-amendment void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
Antitrust DueProcess
Antitrust DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2024-11-08
Related Cases:
23-1365
(Vide)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is the criminal provision of Section 1 of the Sherman Act Constitutional?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Section 1 of the Sherman Act criminalizes “[e]very contract ...in restraint of trade.” 15 U.S.C. § 1. This prohibition cannot be applied literally because it proscribes all contracts, thus leaving courts to define the offense. Does the criminal provision of Section 1 of the Sherman Act violate Article 1 of, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to, the United States Constitution? 2. Did the court of appeals correctly apply the constitutional harmless-error test when it “presumed” that the jury was not affected by a constitutionally erroneous jury instruction?
Docket Entries
2024-11-12
Petition DENIED.
2024-10-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2024.
2024-09-16
Reply of petitioner Brent Brewbaker filed.
2024-09-04
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2024-09-04
Brief of cross-respondent United States in opposition filed.
2024-08-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 4, 2024)
Attorneys
Brent Brewbaker
Elliot Sol Abrams — Cheshire Parker Schneider, PLLC, Petitioner
Elliot Sol Abrams — Cheshire Parker Schneider, PLLC, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent