In the following cases the courts immunize petition for redress of grievances from civil liability. Many actions in federal courts arising from defendants' political activities are based on alleged violation of federal antitrust laws (Sherman Antitrust Act). Such complaints can be dismissed under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which states that political activity is exempt from federal and state antitrust laws unless the activity is a "sham". The Noerr-Pennington doctrine is grounded in the U.S. Constitution First Amendment right to petition the government. See Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127, 81 S.Ct. 523, 5 L.Ed.2d 464 (1961), and United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 85 S.Ct. 1585, 14 L.Ed.2d 626 (1965). The "sham" exception was announced in California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 92 S.Ct. 609, 30 L.Ed.2d 642 (1972). A two-part definition of sham petitioning in the context of litigation was enunciated in Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures, 508 U.S. 49 (1993).

1st Circuit

Manego v. Orleans Board of Trade, 598 F.Supp. 231 (D. Mass., 1984); aff'd, 773 F.2d 1 (8th Cir., 1985).

Plaintiff sued a savings bank and city Board of Trade, alleging that they conspired to orchestrate the Board of Selectmen's denial of his applications to operate a disco. The court granted summary judgment for defendants, stating that plaintiff had offered no facts to support his allegation of conspiracy or to raise an inference that the Board of Trade engaged in "sham" petitioning before the Board of Selectmen.

2nd Circuit

Landmarks Holding Corp. v. Bermant, 664 F.2d 891 (2nd Cir., 1981).

This case provides an example of "sham" petition activity not entitled to protection under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. In 1971 real estate development partners sued two shopping centers and nearby property owners, alleging that defendants had conspired to prevent the partners from opening a competing shopping center by organizing protracted opposition before state administrative agencies and encouraging and subsidizing others to file baseless lawsuits against the partners. In 1980 the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding that defendants' conduct was protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, declaring that defendants' conduct fit the "sham" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and therefore was not protected petitioning under the U.S. Constitution First Amendment.

3rd Circuit

Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Township Civic Association, 443 F.Supp. 1268 (E.D. Pa. 1978), aff'd mem., 595 F.2d 1213 (3rd Circ., 1979), cert denied, 444 U.S. 843, 100 S.Ct. 86, 62 L.Ed. 2d 56 (1979).

Quarry company filed suit against civic association for antitrust and civil rights violations arising out of defendants' initiation of administrative proceedings to oppose the quarry operation. Held: attempts to influence the enforcement or passage of legislation are not actionable under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the private citizens and their lawyer are absolutely privileged by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to petition for zoning amendments.

6th Circuit

Eaton v. Newport Board of Education, 975 F.2d 292 (6th Cir., 1992).

A former school principal sued the local teachers union for damages resulting from lobbying that led to his discharge on grounds of conduct unbecoming a teacher. In the trial court the jury found for plaintiff. The court of appeal reversed, holding that lobbying for the principal's discharge was protected activity under the U.S. Constitution First Amendment.

7th Circuit

Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hollobow, 702 F.2d 643 (7th Cir., 1983)

Action for tortious interference with business opportunity, based on allegations that defendants' complaints to the Securities and Exchange Commission led to adverse effects on plaintiff's business. Held: defendants' complaints to the SEC were privileged under Illinois law (Arlington Heights National Bank v. Arlington Heights Federal Savings and Loan Association, 37 Ill.2d 546, 229 N.E.2d 514, 1967) and the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment protection of the right to petition government for redress of grievances.

Stevens v. Tillman, 855 F.2d 394 (7th Cir., 1988)

The newly elected president of a local parent-teacher council launched a crusade to remove a school principal. The principal, who was eventually reassigned, sued the parent activist for damages under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) as well as various common law actions, including defamation. The court holds, relying on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine: "A campaign to influence the Board of Education is classic political speech; it is direct involvement in governance, and only the most extraordinary showing would permit an award of damages on its account." Consequently, in order to prevail on a complaint of defamation, plaintiff would have to prove defendant acted with "actual malice" under the N.Y. Times v. Sullivan standard.

8th Circuit

Mark Aero, Inc. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 580 F.2d 288 (8th Cir., 1978).

Mark Aero sued TWA and others for antitrust violations after defendants conducted a publicity campaign urging city officials not to open an old airport to commercial operations. Held: The conduct of defendants constituted efforts to influence city officials in political judgments and this conduct was protected by U.S. Constitution First Amendment rights of free speech and petition.

Gorman Towers, Inc. v. Bogoslavsky, 626 F.2d 607 (8th Cir., 1980)

Action against property owners who attempted to prevent construction of plaintiff's housing complex by seeking zoning amendment and spreading allegedly false and derogatory reports about the housing project. Held: defendants' efforts at amending zoning law were absolutely privileged by the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment right to petition government for redress of grievances.

Missouri v. National Organization for Women, 620 F.2d 1301 (8th Cir., 1980)

The State of Missouri sought an injunction against the National Organization for Women (NOW) to stop NOW's campaign to persuade organizations not to hold conventions in states that had not ratified the "equal rights amendment" to the U.S. Constitution. The state alleged that NOW's campaign violated antitrust laws. Held: NOW's action was essentially political and therefore privileged under the U.S. Constitution First Amendment right to petition government.

9th Circuit

Sierra Club v. Butz, 349 F.Supp. 934 (N.D. Cal., 1972)

Environmental protection organization sought a court order prohibiting a lumber company from logging in a specific area. The lumber company filed a counterclaim alleging wrongful interference with business relationships and inducement to breach contract arising from defendants' administrative appeals intended to pursuade the U.S. Forest Service to nullify its contract with the lumber company for sale of lumber. Held: the environmental organization's assertion of administrative appeals and filing of complaints against the lumber company were not the type of conduct for which state civil law could make the organization liable to the lumber company because of the organization's right under the U.S. Constitution First Amendment to petition the government.

Franchise Reality Interstate Corp. v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers, 542 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir., 1976); cert. denied, 430 U.S. 940, 97 S.Ct. 1571 (1977).

Restaurant franchise holders sued a restaurant employer association and labor union, claiming violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act arising from the defendants' appearance before a city board opposing the granting of permits to the plaintiffs to operate a restaurant. Held: the actions of the association and union were not a violation of the Antitrust Act, even if the city board's action were erroneous and the purpose of the opposition was to eliminate competition, because the defendants' actions were protected by the U.S. Constitution First Amendment right to petition the government.

Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Mohla , 944 F.2d 531 (9th Cir., 1991).

Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) sued the U.S. Forest Service and a timber company, seeking to enjoin bidding on a timber cutting contract. The timber company counter-claimed against ONRC, alleging abuse of administrative and judicial process and interference with business relations. The district court ruled that federal law barred ONRC's challenge and, in another decision not published here, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The district court then dismissed the timber company's counter-claim against ONRC, and in the decision published here the appellate court affirms the dismissal. The court, relying on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, finds that ONRC's suit to obtain an injunction against timber cutting was a legitimate effort to influence government action.

Kottle v. Northwest Kidney Centers , 98 C.D.O.S. 4672 (9th Cir., 1998).

The court held that the "sham" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine applies to administrative proceedings as well as litigation. The court noted, however, that when a plaintiff seeks damages for conduct that is prima facie protected by the First Amendment, courts apply a heightened pleading standard. Here the plaintiff's vague allegations of misrepresentation by the defendant before a state agency were insufficient to overcome Noerr-Pennington protection, and thus the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit.