Aikens v. Wisconsin

Background

Managers of three Milwaukee newspapers were accused of joining together to damage The Journal Company after that paper raised advertising rates by about twenty-five percent. The newspapers agreed to refuse or punish advertisers who paid the higher Journal rate, and the Journal suffered business losses. The managers were charged under a Wisconsin law that punished people who combined to "willfully or maliciously" injure another’s business. The defendants argued the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of rights such as contracting.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether the law, as applied, unconstitutionally punished ordinary competitive conduct. It interpreted the word "maliciously" to mean acting with a malevolent purpose to cause harm as an end in itself, not merely acting to gain a competitive advantage. Because the informations alleged such a malevolent purpose and the pleas did not deny it, the Court held the statute could constitutionally reach combinations formed to inflict wrongful harm. The majority affirmed the state courts’ rulings, while limiting their decision to malicious schemes rather than ordinary competition.

Real world impact

The ruling means states may criminally punish coordinated boycotts or plots aimed chiefly at harming a rival, even when the actors are business competitors. It does not wipe out the right to compete or to refuse contracts in ordinary business dealings, because the Court emphasized malicious intent as the key limit. The decision leaves open other questions about broader readings of the law and the separate "willful" branch of the statute.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented, warning that the statute as construed could deprive citizens of a lawful right to contract protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.