SolarCity Corp. v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District

Solar-panel supplier SolarCity Corporation filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (the Power District), alleging that the Power District had attempted to entrench its monopoly by setting prices that disfavored solar-power providers. The Power District moved to dismiss the complaint based on the state-action immunity doctrine. That doctrine insulates states, and in some instances their subdivisions, from federal antitrust liability when they regulate prices in a local industry or otherwise limit competition, as long as they are acting as states in doing so. See, e.g., N.C. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. FTC, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1101, 1109 , 191 L.Ed.2d 35 (2015); FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., 568 U.S. 216 , 133 S.Ct. 1003, 1007 , 185 L.Ed.2d 43 (2013); Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 352 , 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943).

The district court denied the motion, and the Power District appealed. We must decide whether we can consider the appeal immediately under the collateral-order doctrine, or whether any appeal based on state-action immunity must await final judgment. 1 We join the Fourth and…