The Growing Multifamily Zoning Debate: Local Resistance to State Mandates

By: Alexandra Henriquez

Edited By: Regan Cornelius and Eleanor Bergstein

In early October 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Court heard its first oral arguments from the town of Milton’s attorneys defending it against a lawsuit from the state attorney general over its failure to comply with the MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) Communities Act. [1] The act mandates that the 177 municipalities served by the MBTA employ “a zoning ordinance or by-law that provides for at least 1 district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right.” [2] These bylaws require multifamily units to meet specific minimum density, public transportation proximity, and age inclusion provisions. Noncompliance would cause municipalities to lose eligibility for essential state funding programs, such as MassWorks, the Housing Choice Initiative, and the Local Capital Projects Fund, all of which support infrastructure and community development. [3] However, it is essential to note that not all municipalities are assigned the same compliance deadline. “Rapid transit communities,” those with “at least 100 acres of developable station area associated with one or more subway stations, or MBTA Silver Line bus rapid transit stations,” were required to adhere to the act by last December. This consisted of only 12 of the 177 MBTA municipalities. Meanwhile, 130 other communities, known as “commuter rail” and “adjacent” communities, have until the end of 2024 to pass these initiatives. The remaining “smaller adjacent towns” were granted until the end of 2025. [4] As of October 2024, 33 towns have had their zoning plans approved. 139 communities are in interim compliance, meaning the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) has approved their Action Plan, which is in progress; their deadline has not yet passed. [5] Although 172 municipalities are at least in partial compliance, communities like Milton, classified as a rapid transit community, and Holden, an adjacent community, have refused to conform. Most recently, in early November, Millbury residents overwhelmingly voted against a zoning amendment that would comply with the act. [6] 

Considered a reflection of the “American Dream,” single-family housing became popular in the 20th century and was supported by post-World War II policies that facilitated homeownership. Economic growth, suburban expansion enabled by highway development, and zoning laws prioritizing single-family residences reinforced this trend. These zones maintained property values and provided desirable low-density living but also contributed to socio-economic and racial exclusion. Essentially, single-family housing allowed the social-economic control of urban growth. States have the authority to regulate zoning, including single-family zoning, through powers granted by the Tenth Amendment, which allows them to enact laws to promote public welfare. This power is often delegated to local governments via enabling statutes, letting them create zoning ordinances that guide land use, such as residential and commercial zones. The Supreme Court, in the landmark case Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365 (1926)), upheld the constitutionality of zoning as a valid exercise of these powers. [7] Today, many argue that single-family household zoning is to blame for high housing costs, urban sprawl, and segregation, prompting reform efforts in states like California and Oregon that have used this authority to reduce single-family zoning and promote multi-family housing. In 2022, California passed SB 9, which permits the subdivision of single-family lots to allow duplexes or triplexes. [8] In 2019, Oregon also made strides in eliminating exclusionary zoning laws by passing HB 2001, mandating that cities with over 10,000 residents allow for duplexes and triplexes in residential zones. [9] Similarly, Massachusetts has introduced initiatives such as the $4 billion Affordable Homes Act, which includes provisions to incentivize mixed-income multifamily developments. [10]

The lawsuit brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General against the Town of Milton highlights tensions between state and local governments. While states seek to address housing shortages, promote sustainable development, and reduce reliance on car travel, local governments fear losing control over their communities’ specific wants and needs. They express concerns about the strain multi-family housing could place on existing infrastructure, including schools, roads, and public services. Additionally, many municipalities worry about the potential for lower property values and changes to neighborhood aesthetics or community identity, leading to residents’ resistance and political fallout for local officials. [11] 

While both state and local governments acknowledge the urgency of the housing crisis, some local authorities advocate for alternative solutions rather than turning to multi-family housing. Just as this issue crosses the boundaries of local and state policy discussions, it is also a shared concern among both Democrats and Republicans. As we await the decision on Milton, the Massachusetts Supreme Court will be deliberating the extent of the state’s enforcement authority on local governments and the differences between policy “guidelines” and “regulations.” [12] A significant factor at play is the state’s ability to use financial incentives or penalties to encourage compliance from local governments. By taking legal action, the state seeks to reinforce its authority beyond financial encouragement. The outcome of this case could establish a precedent for how far states can go in enforcing compliance from local municipalities.

Notes:

1. Alysha Palumbo and Colin A. Young, “State’s Lawsuit against Milton over MBTA Housing Law Goes Before High Court,” NBC10 Boston, October 7, 2024. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/oral-arguments-monday-in-state-lawsuit-against- milton-over-mbta-housing-law/.

2. Mass. Gen. Laws 40A, § 3A (a)(1), (2021).

3. Mass. Gen. Laws 40A, § 3A (b), (2021).

4.  Annie Jonas, “Map: Deadline Looms for 130 MBTA Communities. What’s next for YourTown,” Boston.com, November 12, 2024, https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/10/17/map-mbta-communities-whats-next-for-your-town/.

5. Sydney Ko, “Map: Who Is - and Isn’t - Complying with the MBTA Communities Act?,” WBUR, October 30, 2024, https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/05/09/mbta-communities-act-zoning-map.

6. Adam Bass, “Millbury Latest Town to Reject MBTA Communities Act Zoning Plan.” MassLive, November 11, 2024, https://www.masslive.com/worcester/2024/11/millbury-latest-town-to-reject-mbta-communities-act-zoning-plan.html.

7. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, (1926)

8. Andrew Bowen, “Three Years into California Duplex Law, San Diego Homeowners Start to Cash In,” KPBS Public Media, October 28, 2024, https://www.kpbs.org/news/quality-of-life/2024/10/28/sb-9-california-duplex-law-san-diego-homeowners.

9. Owen Minott and Julia Selby, “Eliminating Single-Family Zoning and Parking Minimums in Oregon,” Bipartisan Policy Center, September 26, 2023, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/eliminating-single-family-zoning-and-parking-minimums-in-oregon/.

10. Karissa Hand, “Governor Maura Healey Signs Most Ambitious Legislation to Address Housing Costs in State History,” Commonwealth of Massachusetts, October 6, 2024, https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-maura-healey-signs-most-ambitious-legislation-to-address-housing-costs-in-state-history.

11. Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene, “Will States Force Localities to Build Affordable Housing?,” Route Fifty, May 17, 2023, https://www.route-fifty.com/management/2023/05/will-states-force-localities-build-afford able-housing/386465/.

12. Alysha Palumbo and Colin A. Young, “State’s Lawsuit against Milton over MBTA Housing Law Goes Before High Court,” NBC10 Boston, October 7, 2024. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/oral-arguments-monday-in-state-lawsuit-against- milton-over-mbta-housing-law/.
    

Bibliography:

Palumbom, Alysha and Colin A. Young. “State’s Lawsuit against Milton over MBTA Housing Law Goes Before High Court.” NBC10 Boston, October 7, 2024. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/oral-arguments-monday-in-state-lawsuit-against- milton-over-mbta-housing-law/. 

Mass. Gen. Laws 40A, § 3A (a)(1), (2021). 

Mass. Gen. Laws 40A, § 3A (b), (2021).

Jonas, Annie. “Map: Deadline Looms for 130 MBTA Communities. What’s next for YourTown.,” Boston.com, November 12, 2024, https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/10/17/map-mbta-communities-whats-next-for-your-town/.

Ko, Sydney. “Map: Who Is - and Isn’t - Complying with the MBTA Communities Act?,” WBUR, October 30, 2024, https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/05/09/mbta-communities-act-zoning-map.

Bass, Adam. “Millbury Latest Town to Reject MBTA Communities Act Zoning Plan.” MassLive, November 11, 2024, https://www.masslive.com/worcester/2024/11/millbury-latest-town-to-reject-mbta-communities-act-zoning-plan.html.

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, (1926)

Bowen, Andrew. “Three Years into California Duplex Law, San Diego Homeowners Start to Cash In,” KPBS Public Media, October 28, 2024, https://www.kpbs.org/news/quality-of-life/2024/10/28/sb-9-california-duplex-law-san-diego-homeowners.

Minott, Owen and Julia Selby. “Eliminating Single-Family Zoning and Parking Minimums in Oregon,” Bipartisan Policy Center, September 26, 2023, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/eliminating-single-family-zoning-and-parking-minimums-in-oregon/. 

Hand, Karissa. “Governor Maura Healey Signs Most Ambitious Legislation to Address Housing Costs in State History,” Commonwealth of Massachusetts, October 6, 2024, https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-maura-healey-signs-most-ambitious-legislation-to-address-housing-costs-in-state-history.

Barrett, Katherine and Richard Greene, “Will States Force Localities to Build Affordable Housing?,” Route Fifty, May 17, 2023, https://www.route-fifty.com/management/2023/05/will-states-force-localities-build-affordable-housing/386465/. 

The International Court of Justice’s Involvement in Gender Discrimination in Afghanistan

By: Ameera Hamadeh

Edited by: Clark mahoney and Elissa Rizzo

On September 25th, 2024, Canada, Germany, Australia, and the Netherlands declared their formal plans to call upon Afghanistan in efforts to immediately dismantle their violations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). [1] The agreement is the product of over thirty years of work done by the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women to advance the position of females in newly developed countries. Its contents include a global bill of rights excluding all forms of gender discrimination, and an agenda countries can adopt to take action against female injustice. [2] By announcing their concern, these four nations take the first step towards filing a case with the United Nation’s premiere judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, the implications of a court ruling against gender discriminatory actions have remained ambiguous. [3]      

Since its emergence in 1994, the Taliban, an Afghan militant group, has prevented women from exercising fundamental societal rights. Women have been restricted from going to school or pursuing independent study, working, receiving healthcare from men, and leaving the house without a male chaperone. From a societal lens, “women were essentially invisible in public life, imprisoned in their homes” and unable to escape the regime in fear of strict consequences. [4] Today, the Taliban’s levels of discrimination have been classified as “gender persecution” and a “crime against humanity.” [5] As a result, over twenty nations have stated that they do not recognize the Taliban as the formal political leaders of Afghanistan. [6]

Once filed, the case against the Taliban’s leadership will follow the ICJ’s common advisory procedure, a process which may take up to several years to complete. Though the court’s official verdict is important to global humanitarian justice, advisory opinions made by the court are only “consultative in character and are, therefore, not binding as such on the requesting bodies.” [7] As a judicial organization, the ICJ retains no enforcement body to implement their rulings. Instead, the court relies on cooperation from other United Nations states to get the designated entity to adhere to national law. This structure makes it challenging to resolve female subordination in Afghanistan, as the Taliban maintains reign throughout the Afghan state and typically refuses to engage with the international council on human rights issues. [8]

However, a case in alignment with the concerns of these four nations still seems to have indirect, yet imperative, consequences for Afghanistan’s global affairs. Any association with the ICJ will likely coax peer countries towards refusing to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate governing body. A ruling against Afghanistan would make companies less likely to carry out business with the regime due to illegitimacy. Corporations would view business relations with the nation as a scandal that “would tarnish the entire supply chain.” [9] The female discrimination which the Taliban has perpetuated for the past thirty years will not persist without challenge. There are several negative implications for the future of the regime, which work to promote justice and prosperity for women living under these oppressive circumstances.

Notes:

1. Ochab, Ewelina U.“The Taliban To Be Taken Before The International Court Of Justice.” Forbes, 24 Sept. 2024. www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2024/09/26/the-taliban-to-be-taken-before -the-international-court-of-justice/.

2. UnitedNationsGeneralAssembly.“Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women New York, 18 December 1979.” United States Office of the High Commissioner, December 18, 1979. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-eli mination-all-forms-discrimination-against-women.

3. Ochab, Ewelina U.“The Taliban To Be Taken Before The International Court Of Justice.” Forbes, 24 Sept. 2024. www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2024/09/26/the-taliban-to-be-taken-before -the-international-court-of-justice/.

4. “Women in Afghanistan: The Back Story.” Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/womens-rights-afghanistan-history. 

5. Ibid 

6. “Taliban Who Banned Women from Public Spaces Say No One Faces Discrimination in Afghanistan.” The Associate Press, September 26, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan-taliban-women-legal-rights-gender-discr imination-93f88c497d9851059361fbc83ab8d20d.

7. Couvreur, Philippe.“Upholding the Rule of Law at the International Level: The Role of the International Court of Justice.” United Nations: UN Chronicle, December 31, 2012. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/upholding-rule-law-international-level-rol e-international-court-justice.

8. Ochab, Ewelina U.“The Taliban To Be Taken Before The International Court Of Justice.” Forbes, 24 Sept. 2024. www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2024/09/26/the-taliban-to-be-taken-before -the-international-court-of-justice/.

9. Alice Johnson.“Afghanistan: Potential ICJ Case a Step towards Justice for Afghan Women.” International Bar Association, October 24, 2024. https://www.ibanet.org/afghanistan-icj#:~:text=The%20action%2C%20which% 20is%20supported,authorities%20seized%20power%20in%202021.

Bibliography:

Alice Johnson. “Afghanistan: Potential ICJ Case a Step towards Justice for Afghan Women.” International Bar Association, October 24, 2024. https://www.ibanet.org/afghanistan-icj#:~:text=The%20action%2C%20which%20is%20supporte d,authorities%20seized%20power%20in%202021.

Couvreur, Philippe. “Upholding the Rule of Law at the International Level: The Role of the International Court of Justice.” United Nations: UN Chronicle, December 31, 2012. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/upholding-rule-law-international-level-role-international- court-justice.

Ochab, Ewelina U. “The Taliban To Be Taken Before The International Court Of Justice.” Forbes, 24 Sept. 2024. www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2024/09/26/the-taliban-to-be-taken-before-the-international -court-of-justice/ .

“Taliban Who Banned Women from Public Spaces Say No One Faces Discrimination in Afghanistan.” The Associate Press, September 26, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan-taliban-women-legal-rights-gender-discrimination-93f88c 497d9851059361fbc83ab8d20d.

United Nations General Assembly. “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women New York, 18 December 1979.” United States Office of the High Commissioner, December 18, 1979. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-elimination-all-forms -discrimination-against-women.

“Women in Afghanistan: The Back Story.” Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/womens-rights-afghanistan-history.

Donald Trump is Suing CBS News for $10 Billion, Should Free-Speech Lovers Worry?

By: Jared Fischer

Edited by: Jonah Elkowitz and Clark Mahoney

Donald Trump gave CBS News a trick instead of a treat this Halloween. On October 31, the then-Republican nominee for president filed a lawsuit in Texas’ Northern District accusing the news broadcaster of attempting to “confuse, deceive, and mislead” voters by publishing two different versions of Vice President, then Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris’s answer to a question she was asked during her interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes last month. The difference between the two responses is striking. In one response, included as part of the full interview broadcasted on Monday, October 7, Harris gives a short, succinct, and mostly effective answer to interviewer Bill Whitaker’s question about the relationship between American and Israeli leadership. In her response to the same question that was published in a preview of the interview released on Sunday, October 6, however, Harris stumbles to find a clear message. The discrepancy in the quality of Harris’s answer between the two clips caused a stir online, and fueled further criticisms about the VP’s poor ability to answer difficult questions on the spot. It also happens to be the reason for the Trump campaign's most recent lawsuit, which seeks up to $10 billion in damages from CBS for what the Republican President is portraying as the media company’s covert attempt to portray Kamala Harris in a more positive light than in reality. [1]  

News of the lawsuit comes in the wake of a greater cultural conversation about the state and role of free expression in America. College campus movements and ensuing protests around the nation have stimulated new legal questions about the extent of free speech in academic settings. Similarly, members of both major American political parties have centered speech issues in their appeals to voters during the 2024 presidential campaign. For instance, Trump, along with many conservatives, has characterized some politicians’ attempts to combat so-called Covid-19 “misinformation” on social media as government censorship, in addition to other efforts to pressure companies like Meta and Twitter to take a more active role in cenosring content on their platforms deemed false by third-party “fact-checkers.” [2] Democrats, on the other hand, point to Trump’s history of demonizing, delegitimizing, and threatening media organizations as proof of his opposition to free speech principles. [3]

Politics aside, Donald Trump has a real and extensive history of taking legal action against unfavorable media coverage. In March, he filed a lawsuit against ABC, ABC News, and host George Stephanopoulos over comments the news anchor made about writer E. Jean Carroll’s successful civil case against the 45th president where she accused the president of sexual assault and then lying about their encounter. [4] The lawsuit concerned Stephanopoulos’s statement that Donald Trump was found liable for rape in the New York-based case, when the jury only determined the Republican president liable for sexual assault. ABC eventually settled the case with President Trump for $15 million. Nonetheless, Trump’s attempts at legal retribution have been generally unsuccessful. The President has failed to retrieve damages from lawsuits against CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. [5]

All of President Trump’s past lawsuits against media organizations sought damage for what he considered to be defamation. What makes Trump v. CBS significant, however, is that Trump has accused CBS of consumer deception, not defamation. Many jurisdictions around the country have legal protections in place to protect against consumer deception by penalizing businesses’ use of misleading communications practices to advertise products to consumers. Yet, in Trump’s recently filed consumer deception lawsuit, which specifically cites Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), Kamala Harris herself is the product, CBS the deceitful proprietor, and the American people the consumers. [6] 

Despite this creative interpretation of anti-consumer deception law and engaging in what some commentators have referred to as “judge shopping”–choosing where to file suit based on the perceived friendliness of the region’s judiciary system–most legal experts believe that Trump’s lawsuit against CBS is likely to fail, given its flimsy logic and problematic relationship with the Supreme Court’s general understanding of press freedom. [7] Though, it should not take an expert to recognize the blatant insincerity of a case that demands $10 billion in damages for consumer deception, especially considering Trump and the Republicans’ 2024 electoral win. Instead, the suit is more likely a symbol of MAGA’s bitterness toward mainstream media and the perceived hostility towards the right-wing movement’s leader. Trump engages in fraught legal battles with the media to fight back against what he and his most passionate supporters see as a corrupt media class, notwithstanding the low likelihood of success. 

Even if objections to CBS’s editorial decisions in its 60 Minutes interview with Harris remain—the broadcasting company’s refusal to release the full, unedited transcript of the meeting does raise some valid questions about the organization’s impartiality—attacking the media’s ability to editorialize content as they see fit through legal action is clearly problematic. [8] Although CBS says Trump’s claims about the integrity of Harris’s responses are completely false, the First Amendment should protect the right of press organizations to make decisions about what content to include in broadcasts, even if these decisions are considered by some, but especially partisans, to be misleading. [9]

While Donald Trump is likely to be unsuccessful in his bid to punish CBS News for protected expression, attempts by the government to censor free speech in the name of “consumer protection” are a very real phenomenon in many parts of the United States, and can be especially burdensome for institutions that are not well equipped to fight back. [10] Texas, where Trump filed his lawsuit against CBS, is an epicenter of these sorts of anti-speech proceedings. The state’s Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton was the subject of a recent ProPublica investigation on the subject. The investigation identified a concerning pattern that involved Paxton invoking the state’s strong consumer protection law to investigate, and sometimes prosecute, private organizations that facilitated speech perceived as hostile to the goals of Texas’s political leaders. [11] The use of consumer-protection laws to stifle free expression is incredibly concerning. 

As the American political mainstream turns increasingly adverse to First Amendment principles, it is up to the courts and, ultimately, the American people, to remain vigilant in the face of government censorship, wherever it comes from. In America, the way to rebuff poor media behavior is critique, not ligation. And, as it turns out, Donald Trump did not need the help of courts to marginalize his adversaries in the news. The democratic process completed the job for him.

Notes:

1. Trump v. CBS Broadcasting Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00236, U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (currently pending) [Accessed December 1, 2024]. 

2. Zweig, David. “How Twitter Rigged the Covid Debate.” The Free Press. The Free Press, December 26, 2022. https://www.thefp.com/p/how-twitter-rigged-the-covid-debate.

3. Stern, Seth. “Trump will try to destroy press freedom. We won’t let him.” Freedom of the Press Foundation. Freedom of the Press Foundation, November 6, 2024. https://freedom.press/issues/trump-will-try-to-destroy-press-freedom-we-wont-let-him/. 

4. Kates, Graham and Katrina Kaufman.  “Trump is suing ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation.” CBS News. CBS Broadcasting Inc, March 21, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-suing-abc-news-george-stephanopoulos-defamation/.

5. CBS News Staff. “Trump sues CBS News over 60 Minutes with Harris.” CBS News. CBS Broadcasting Inc, October 31, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-sues-cbs-news-60-minutes-interview/.

6. Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46 (1972), https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BC/htm/BC.17.htm.

7. Passantino, Jon and Rashard Rose. “Trump sues CBS over ‘60 Minutes’ interview with Harris.” CNN. CNN, November 1, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/01/media/trump-cbs-lawsuit-harris-60-minutes-interview/index.html. 

8. The Editors. “‘60 Minutes’: Release the Unedited Kamala Harris Transcript.” The Free Press. The Free Press, October 12, 2024.  https://www.thefp.com/p/60-minutes-release-the-unedited-kamala.

9. CBS News Staff. “Trump sues CBS News over 60 Minutes with Harris.”

10. Vogus, Caitlin. “Censoring news does not protect consumers.” Freedom of the Press Foundation. Freedom of the Press Foundation, November 5, 2024. https://freedom.press/issues/consumer-protection-law-censorship/.

11. Davila, Vianna. “Here are the organizations that Ken Paxton targeted using consumer protections laws.” ProPublica and The Texas Tribune. ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, May 30, 2024.  https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/30/texas-ken-paxton-consumer-protection-law-investigations/.

Bibliography:

CBS News Staff. “Trump sues CBS News over 60 Minutes with Harris.” CBS News. CBS Broadcasting Inc, October 31, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-sues-cbs-news-60-minutes-interview/.

Davila, Vianna. “Here are the organizations that Ken Paxton targeted using consumer protections laws.” ProPublica and The Texas Tribune. ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, May 30, 2024.  https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/30/texas-ken-paxton-consumer-protection-law-investigations/.

Kates, Graham and Katrina Kaufman.  “Trump is suing ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation.” CBS News. CBS Broadcasting Inc, March 21, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-suing-abc-news-george-stephanopoulos-defamation/.

Passantino, Jon and Rashard Rose. “Trump sues CBS over ‘60 Minutes’ interview with Harris.” CNN. CNN, November 1, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/01/media/trump-cbs-lawsuit-harris-60-minutes-interview/index.html.

The Editors. “‘60 Minutes’: Release the Unedited Kamala Harris Transcript.” The Free Press. The Free Press, October 12, 2024.  https://www.thefp.com/p/60-minutes-release-the-unedited-kamala.

Stern, Seth. “Trump will try to destroy press freedom. We won’t let him.” Freedom of the Press Foundation. Freedom of the Press Foundation, November 6, 2024. https://freedom.press/issues/trump-will-try-to-destroy-press-freedom-we-wont-let-him/. 

Trump v. CBS Broadcasting Inc, No. 2:24-cv-00236, U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (currently pending) [Accessed December 1, 2024].

Vogus, Caitlin. “Censoring news does not protect consumers.” Freedom of the Press Foundation. Freedom of the Press Foundation, November 5, 2024. https://freedom.press/issues/consumer-protection-law-censorship/.

Zweig, David. 2022. “How Twitter Rigged the Covid Debate.” The Free Press. https://www.thefp.com/p/how-twitter-rigged-the-covid-debate.

Monopoly or Merit? Andretti's Struggle for a Spot in Formula One

By: Alison Booth

Edited by: Olivia Paik and Eliana Aemro Selassie

Sporting leagues exist on a narrow plane between colluding monopolies and competitive industries. A level of collusion is essential to limit the scale of the organizations to feasible competition. However, this blurry line has been a recent cause of controversy in motorsport as Congress questions the authority of Formula One management to limit the number of teams in the series, a possible violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.        

The pinnacle of motorsport is commonly agreed to be the Formula One series. In the league, 20 single-seater cars from 10 teams race over 24 weekends of the year across the world. Notably, three of these races occur in the United States.

Yet, none of the ten teams exists independently of European influence. Each team has three major components: their two drivers, the home base where they build the bulk of the car, and their power unit supplier. Some teams both build their car and power unit; however, smaller teams rely on outside power unit manufacturers. One of the ten teams, MoneyGram Haas F1 Team, is based in North Carolina. Nonetheless, neither their drivers nor their power unit are  American-based.

However, an American name, Andretti Global, has been looking to disrupt this space. The team, which competes in other motorsport leagues, began to build a Formula One-style car and factory. Originally, they were advised to purchase the rights to an existing team, but when attempts to buy Stake F1 Team Kick Sauber fell through, Andretti initiated an application to be the eleventh team to the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the regulating body of many motorsport series. In October 2023, the FIA accepted their application. [1]

But, the tune flipped in January 2024 when Formula One management rejected the bid, citing concerns around competitiveness. [2] The management arm which rejected the bid is primarily the commercial arm of the series. Concerns centered around the value Andretti would bring to the series.

If Andretti were to enter for the 2025 season, they would have to enter into a partnership with the shrinking pool of engine suppliers. The 2025 season is already set to lose one manufacturer due to poor performance, down to three groups supplying the grid of ten teams. Formula One management suggested that entering with an engine supplier, General Motors, could bring sufficient value to support a new team’s entrance. [3]

Such a stipulation is not feasible for both a timely entry and competitive status for Andretti Global. With the options shrinking for 2025 to only three possible suppliers and the infeasibility of General Motors producing a competitive engine, Andretti lacks realistic options.

The rejection elicited concern among Congressman John James of Michigan, as General Motors, a Michigan-based company, is being restricted from market participation. James claims not wanting to split profits is the central motive behind the rejection by the commercial arm. [4] James cited concerns around the use of American markets while rejecting American corporate participation in a letter to Greg Maffei, the CEO of Liberty Media which owns the rights to the commercial arm of Formula One. [5]

James, in coordination with 11 other members of Congress, sent a letter to Maffei citing the fact that up to 12 teams may participate in the Formula One World Championship, and membership ought to be based on merit. [6] They posed questions about the authority of Formula One management to reject Andretti after acceptance by the FIA, a possible violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the role of General Motors’ intentions to sell Cadillac brand cars in Europe, competing with existing Formula One commercial car manufacturers. [7]

A second letter from the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary sent to Liberty Media requested documents in relation to the rationale behind restricting Andretti Global’s entrance into Formula One. The Committee on the Judiciary acknowledged the necessity of a level of collusion in sports but cited the essential requirement of maintaining competition. Collusion ensures the competition remains at a manageable and competitive level without excessive or poor teams. Many current Formula One teams do not meet the criteria, an ability to compete for top three placements, required of Andretti Global. [8] Liberty Media may have broken antitrust law to maximize prize money for existing teams and protect weak teams.

The Sherman Antitrust Act is a federal statute generally prohibiting activities that restrict interstate commerce. [9] The act serves to prevent and penalize monopolization. More recently, the Clayton Antitrust Act outlined more specific details to bolster the Sherman Act. [10] Congress requested that the Department of Justice investigate (DOJ) Liberty Media’s Formula One Management, and the DOJ has begun an investigation into possible violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. [11] The DOJ investigation is ongoing, but if Liberty Media can prove Andretti will not bring value to the series, they have a strong case for their rejection of the team. Moving forward, all eyes will be on Liberty Media to see if Andretti Global is allowed to proceed with the proposition to add an additional team or if Congressional pressure will be necessary. Moving forward, the expansion or limitation of American owned teams could be central to the growth of motorsport in the United States.

Notes:

1. Hunt, Ben. “Andretti F1 Plans Unchanged after Ownership Switch.” Motorsport Network, 10 Oct. 2024, www.motorsport.com/f1/news/andretti-f1-plans-unchanged-after-ownership-change/10661970/.

2. Hunt, “Andretti F1 Plans Unchanged after Ownership Switch.”

3. Edmondson, Laurence. “Why F1 rejected Andretti bid to join the grid for 2025, 2026.” ESPN, 31 Jan. 2024, https://www.espn.com/racing/st.

4. Klinefelter, Quinn. “There’s an ongoing battle happening at the highest level of motor sports.” National Public Radio, 15 July 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/07/15/nx-s1-5035489/theres-an-ongoing-battle-happening-at-the-highest-level-of-motor-sports.

5. Brown, Nathan. “Liberty Media under investigation over anti-trust violations after denying Andretti F1 bid.” Indianapolis Star, 9 Aug. 2024, https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/motor/2024/08/09/liberty-media-us-department-of-justice-investi

6. Brown, Nathan. “Liberty Media under investigation over anti-trust violations after denying Andretti F1 bid.” Indianapolis Star, 9 Aug. 2024, https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/motor/2024/08/09/liberty-media-us-department-of-justice-investiga

7. Brown, “Liberty Media under investigation over anti-trust violations after denying Andretti F1 bid.”

8. Brown, “Liberty Media under investigation over anti-trust violations after denying Andretti F1 bid.”

9. Wex Definitions Team. “Sherman Antitrust Act.” Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, June 2022, https://www.law.cornell..

10.  Wex Definitions Team. “Clayton Antitrust Act.” Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, July 2022, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clayto.

11. Klinefelter, Quinn. “There’s an ongoing battle happening at the highest level of motor sports.” National Public Radio, 15 July 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/07/15/nx-s1-5035489/theres-an-ongoing-battle-happening-at-the-highest-level-of-motor-sports.

Bibliography:

Hunt, Ben. “Andretti F1 Plans Unchanged after Ownership Switch.” Motorsport Network, 10 Oct. 2024, www.motorsport.com/f1/news/andretti-f1-plans-unchanged-after-ownership-change/10661970/.

Edmondson, Laurence. “Why F1 rejected Andretti bid to join the grid for 2025, 2026.” ESPN, 31 Jan. 2024, https://www.espn.com/raci.

Klinefelter, Quinn. “There’s an ongoing battle happening at the highest level of motor sports.” National Public Radio, 15 July 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/07/15/nx-s1-5035489/theres-an-ongoing-battle-happening-at-the-highest-level-of-motor-sports.

Brown, Nathan. “Liberty Media under investigation over anti-trust violations after denying Andretti F1 bid.” Indianapolis Star, 9 Aug. 2024, https:/

Wex Definitions Team. “Sherman Antitrust Act.” Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, June 2022, https://www.law.cornell.edu/w.

Wex Definitions Team. “Clayton Antitrust Act.” Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, July 2022, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clayton_antitrust_act.