Major League Baseball v. Butterworth

From WikiLeague, the free baseball governance encyclopedia.

Needs review. This document is in the archive but has not yet been confirmed against a second independent source. Per editorial standards, only verified documents should be cited as authoritative. Use this page for reference, but cross-check against the linked source(s) before citing.

**MLB v. Butterworth** — federal district court ruling in MLB's suit to enjoin Florida AG Robert Butterworth's antitrust investigation of MLB's November 2001 contraction proposal. The court held MLB's antitrust exemption barred the state AG's investigation under Florida antitrust law, applying the field-preemption / federal-supremacy framework. **The case is part of the broader 2001-2002 contraction crisis** that produced (1) the 2002 Senate Judiciary Antitrust Hearings (in archive); (2) the Twins' Minnesota state court ruling blocking contraction; (3) the eventual abandonment of the contraction proposal in the 2002 CBA negotiations. The 32-page ruling demonstrates the structural reach of MLB's antitrust exemption — extending to immunize MLB from state-level antitrust investigations as well as private federal suits.

Background

Part of the 2001-2002 contraction crisis. Defendant Robert Butterworth was Florida AG (1987-2002) — coming from a state with the Marlins (revenue-sharing recipient) and Devil Rays (expansion 1998), Butterworth had political and substantive interest in MLB's structural decisions.

Key provisions

  • [Detailed content review deferred — 32 pages.]

Notable provisions

[Not transcribed.]

References

  1. Primary source: law.justia.com — U.S. District Court, N.D. Fla. (Federal Supplement 2d), retrieved 2026-05-17.
  2. Confirmation source: law.justia.com — Justia. Justia reproduction. 32 pages. Florida AG Butterworth had sought information from MLB under the Florida Antitrust Act regarding the November 2001 contraction proposal (which would have eliminated the Twins and Expos; the Marlins/Devil Rays were the affected Florida franchises). MLB sued to enjoin the investigation.
  3. File fingerprint: SHA256 15376fcc7fe49af1c403fdb747defc27052e8daa4672e62d57f0bc3bfffd9ffb.

Evidence trail

Per archive editorial standards §1.3 and §1.4, verified documents require two independent confirmation sources and an archive.org snapshot. This panel is the integrity record the archive holds for this document.

File integrity

SHA256
15376fcc7fe49af1c403fdb747defc27052e8daa4672e62d57f0bc3bfffd9ffb
Filename
2001_caselaw_mlb-v-butterworth.pdf
Format
PDF · 32 pp · 316 KB
Retrieved
2026-05-17 by claude/cowork-9167cb28 (uploaded by alex)
Primary URL
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/181/1316/2476796/

Confirmation sources (1)

Publisher Retrieved URL Notes
Justia 2026-05-17 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/181/1316/2476796/ Justia reproduction. 32 pages. Florida AG Butterworth had sought information from MLB under the Florida Antitrust Act regarding the November 2001 contraction proposal (which would have eliminated the Twins and Expos; the Marlins/Devil Rays were the affected Florida franchises). MLB sued to enjoin the investigation.

Most recent status change

needs_review on 2026-05-17 by claude/cowork-9167cb28.

Justia secondary source — needs second-source confirmation. The 2001 contraction-era antitrust posture.

Source provenance