Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act
Latest action. Referred to House Committee on Judiciary.
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act - Revises the procedures relating to the entry by the United States in U.S. District Courts of proposals for consent judgements for antitrust violations. States that simultaneously with the filing of any such proposal, unless otherwise instructed by the court, the United States shall file with the district court, publish in the Federal Register, and thereafter furnish to any person upon request, a competitive impact statement which shall recite: (1) the nature and purpose of the proceeding; (2) a description of the practices or events giving rise to the alleged violation of the antitrust laws; (3) an explanation of the proposal for a consent judgement, including an explanation of any unusual circumstances giving rise to such proposal or any provisions contained therein, relief to be obtained thereby, and the anticipated effects on competition of such relief; (4) the remedies available to potential private plaintiffs damaged by the alleged violation in the event that such proposal for the consent judgement is entered in such proceeding; (5) a description of the procedures available for modification of such proposal; and (6) a description and evaluation of alternatives to such proposal actually considered by the United States. Stipulates that before entering any consent judgement proposed by the United States, the court shall determine that the entry of such judgement is in the public interest. Provides for an increase in penalties for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of up to $500,000 for corporations and $100,000 for individuals. States that in cases of general public importance, as certified by the Attorney General, it shall be the duty of the judge designated to hear the case to assign the case for early hearing and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. Provides that appeals from a final judgement entered in any action shall lie directly to the Supreme Court if the Attorney General files in the district court a certificate stating that immediate consideration of the appeal by the Supreme Court is of general public importance in the administration of justice. Directs the Supreme Court to either: (1) dispose of the appeal and any cross appeal in the same manner as any other direct appeal authorized by law, or (2) deny the direct appeal and remit the case to the appropriate court of appeals, which shall then have jurisdiction to hear and determine such case as if the appeal and any cross appeal in such case had been docketed in the court of appeals in the first instance.
Written by analysts at the Congressional Research Service and published on Congress.gov, not by Civibrief. Summarized at the "Introduced in House" stage on October 8, 1974. It describes the bill, it is not the legal text.
Where is it in the process, and what happens next?
4 steps remain before this bill could become law.
The record's latest action, on October 8, 1974: Referred to House Committee on Judiciary.
- Clearing the committees it was referred to, and being scheduled for a floor vote
- Passage by the House
- Passage by the Senate
- The President's signature. If the President vetoes it, two-thirds of both chambers must vote to override.
How likely is it to become law?
Civibrief does not forecast outcomes and this page has no opinion about this one. What the record supports is a base rate, which is a fact about the whole pile, not a prediction about this measure.
In the 93rd Congress (1973-74), 651 of the 23,396 bills and joint resolutions introduced became law, about 2.8 percent. That count covers every measure at every stage, including the many that never left committee.
This one is not there yet: 4 steps are still outstanding, listed above.
Has anyone actually voted on it?
No. No roll call in this Congress cites this measure. That is the ordinary outcome: most measures never reach a recorded floor vote, and a committee ends most of them simply by not acting.
A vote is not the only thing that happens to a measure. Hearings, markups, and referrals are all recorded actions, and none of them is a vote of the full chamber.
Who is behind it?
EDWARD MEZVINSKY (D-IA) introduced it on October 8, 1974. No cosponsors are recorded.
Cosponsoring is a formal signature on the text. It is not a commitment to vote for the measure, it does not bind anyone's party, and a long list of cosponsors is a measure of attention rather than of prospects.
How long has it been in play?
It was introduced on October 8, 1974, 18965 days ago. The most recent recorded action was 18965 days ago, on October 8, 1974.
Measures do not carry over. Anything the 93rd Congress has not finished by January 3, 1975 dies when the term ends, and has to be introduced again from the start in the next Congress.
Every answer above is assembled from this measure's own record on Congress.gov and from published counts of what Congress has passed before. Civibrief does not predict outcomes and takes no position on any measure.
Vote history
- HouseIn committee, no floor vote yet
- SenateAwaits House passage
- PresidentAwaits both chambers