CHAPTER XIII
GENERAL EXEMPTIONS AND IMMUNITIES
State Action Analysis of Private Conduct – A Two-Part Framework
The Clear Articulation Requirement
In Ellis v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power
District,1 the Ninth Circuit noted that the relevant state statute did not
clearly articulate a policy to displace competition, but “that Arizona’s
‘statutes signal a shift by [the] legislature to promote competition in the
retail electricity market’ not curtail it.”2 The court rejected the proposition
that the alleged anticompetitive conduct and effects were a natural
consequence of the utility’s statutorily granted authority.3
Actions Taken by Subordinate Government Entities
State Executive Departments, Agencies, and Special Authorities
In Van Hook v. Idaho,4 the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho
explained that state agencies are not sovereign actors for purpo ses of state-
action immunity simply by virtue of their governmental character and that
immunity is only applicable where they are acting as required by state
regulations.5 In this case, however, the Idaho Judicial Council was entitled
2. Id. at 1276.
3. Id.
4. 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22412 (D. Idaho 2022).
5. Id. at *18.
