McCarran–Ferguson Act

McCarran-Ferguson ActexemptionMcCarran-Ferguson exemptionMcCarron-Ferguson Act
The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent.wikipedia
44 Related Articles

Law of the United States

United States federal lawUnited States lawAmerican lawyer
The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent.
In a handful of areas like insurance, Congress has enacted laws expressly refusing to regulate them as long as the states have laws regulating them (see, e.g., the McCarran–Ferguson Act).

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters AssociationU.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n
The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution and that the federal antitrust laws applied to the insurance industry.
Congress responded by enacting the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 which limited antitrust laws' applicability to the business and assured state authority would continue over insurance.

United States antitrust law

antitrustantitrust lawUS antitrust law
The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent.
Fifth, insurance is allowed limited antitrust exemptions as provided by the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945.

Pat McCarran

Patrick McCarranPatrick Anthony McCarranPatrick A. McCarran
The Act was sponsored by Senators Pat McCarran (D-Nev.) and Homer Ferguson (R-Mich.).
In 1945, McCarran co-sponsored the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which exempted the insurance industry from most federal regulations, including antitrust rules.

Healthcare reform in the United States

health care reformHealth care reform in the United Stateshealthcare reform
One aspect of Republican proposals for healthcare reform in the United States is allowing interstate competition for health insurance, potentially requiring modification of the McCarran–Ferguson Act.

United States Code

U.S.C.U.S. Codefederal statute
The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent.

Supreme Court of the United States

United States Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme CourtSupreme Court
The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution and that the federal antitrust laws applied to the insurance industry.

Commerce Clause

interstate commerceInterstate Commerce Clauseinterstate
The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution and that the federal antitrust laws applied to the insurance industry.

Constitution of the United States

United States ConstitutionU.S. ConstitutionConstitution
The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution and that the federal antitrust laws applied to the insurance industry.

Democratic Party (United States)

DemocraticDemocratDemocratic Party
The Act was sponsored by Senators Pat McCarran (D-Nev.) and Homer Ferguson (R-Mich.).

Nevada

NVState of NevadaNevada, USA
The Act was sponsored by Senators Pat McCarran (D-Nev.) and Homer Ferguson (R-Mich.).

Homer S. Ferguson

Homer FergusonHomer Samuel FergusonFerguson
The Act was sponsored by Senators Pat McCarran (D-Nev.) and Homer Ferguson (R-Mich.).

Republican Party (United States)

RepublicanRepublican PartyR
The Act was sponsored by Senators Pat McCarran (D-Nev.) and Homer Ferguson (R-Mich.).

Michigan

MIState of MichiganMich.
The Act was sponsored by Senators Pat McCarran (D-Nev.) and Homer Ferguson (R-Mich.).

Boycott

boycottsboycottedboycotting
Specifically with respect to federal antitrust laws it exempts the "business of insurance" as long as the state regulates in that area, with the proviso that cases of boycott, coercion, and intimidation remain prohibited regardless of state regulation.

Coercion

duresscoercivecoerced
Specifically with respect to federal antitrust laws it exempts the "business of insurance" as long as the state regulates in that area, with the proviso that cases of boycott, coercion, and intimidation remain prohibited regardless of state regulation.

Intimidation

intimidateintimidatingintimidated
Specifically with respect to federal antitrust laws it exempts the "business of insurance" as long as the state regulates in that area, with the proviso that cases of boycott, coercion, and intimidation remain prohibited regardless of state regulation.

Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890

Sherman Antitrust ActSherman ActSherman Anti-Trust Act
The indictment charged the defendants with two counts of antitrust violations: (1) conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act to fix the premium rates on certain fire insurance policies and boycott non-complying independent sales agencies that did not comply; and (2) monopolization of markets for the sale of fire insurance policies in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Demurrer

failure to state a claimdemurreddemur
The district court sustained the defendants' demurrer and dismissed the indictment, holding that "the business of insurance is not commerce, either intrastate or interstate" and that it "is not interstate commerce or interstate trade, though it might be considered a trade subject to local laws either State or Federal, where the commerce clause is not the authority relied upon."

Hugo Black

BlackJustice BlackHugo L. Black
The Supreme Court in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944), 4-3 decision written by Justice Hugo Black, reversed the district court, holding that (1) the Sherman Act intended to cover the alleged acts of monopolization; and (2) that the transaction of insurance across state lines was "commerce among the states" which the Constitution permitted Congress to regulate.

Harlan F. Stone

Harlan Fiske StoneHarlan StoneChief Justice Stone
Chief Justice Stone argued that the writing of insurance in one state to cover risk in another was not "interstate commerce" as a constitutional matter and that the actions charged were not within the purview of the Sherman Act.

Robert H. Jackson

Robert JacksonJacksonJustice Jackson
Justice Jackson, in addition to concurring with the Chief Justice, urged the impracticality of allowing both state and federal regulation of insurance and given the precedent believed that it should be done by the states, at least absent a specific declaration by Congress.

Felix Frankfurter

FrankfurterJustice FrankfurterFrankfurter J
Justice Frankfurter allowed that Congress's power under the Commerce Clause reached these actions but argued that the Sherman Act was not an express warrant that Congress intended to enter this area of commerce.

Amicus curiae

amicus briefamici curiaeamicus
The prospect of a federal take-over of insurance regulation, alarmed state regulators and thirty five states had filed amicus curiae briefs supporting the decision of the district court.

Francis Biddle

Francis Beverly BiddleAttorney General BiddleBiddle
State insurance regulators and insurance executives complained to Congress that the decision would upset the extensive system of state regulation and taxation (as Justice Jackson had warned), even though Attorney General Biddle denied any such intent.