The nation’s largest owner of broadcast television stations, entangled with DirecTV in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over its FCC and Justice Department-approved merger with TEGNA Inc., has petitioned the highest judicial body in the U.S. to take a look at a Second Circuit ruling that reversed an antitrust win — one that is wholly tied to the thorny issue of retransmission consent negotiations.
In a 40-page document dated April 28 and submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday (5/4) for its consideration, counsel for Nexstar Media Group and shared service providers White Knight Broadcasting and Mission Broadcasting argued that antitrust litigants would benefit greatly from the court’s guidance on the antitrust standing doctrine in the 1983 decision in Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc., v. Cal State Council of Carpenters.
The key question: Are private plaintiffs entitled to bring per se price-fixing conspiracy claims for a purchase they never made?
The decision by Nexstar to take its retransmission consent battle with DirecTV to the Supreme Court follows a mid-December 2025 decision by the Second Circuit to side with DirecTV in establishing the argument that Nexstar engaged in antitrust activities when it failed to reach a retransmission consent accord with the DBS provider in 2022. In particular, DirecTV accuses Nexstar, SSA partner White Knight, and variable interest subsidiary Mission Broadcasting of conspiring in a price-fixing scheme, and that DirecTV suffered losses as a result of their actions, which would present a violation of federal anti-trust laws.
The Second Circuit decision overturned a New York federal district court ruling that had granted Nexstar Media Group’s motion to dismiss DirecTV’s claims. It is in this court that a more than three-year legal tussle began, with District Judge Kevin Castel assigned the case in March 2023. Approximately one year later, he ruled in favor of Nexstar. That didn’t sit well with DirecTV, leading to the appeal. Arguments began in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in December 2024, and 12 months later Circuit Judges Chin and Menashi sided with DirecTV, while Judge Sullivan dissented in the 2-1 ruling overturning Castel’s decision.
In reversing the lower court, Chin and Menashi note that Castel’s court dismissed the antitrust claims on the grounds that DirecTV lacked antitrust standing because it did not actually pay the “supracompetitive” prices demanded by the alleged price-fixing conspiracy and therefore could not establish antitrust injury. Additionally, as a non-purchaser, DirecTV in Castel’s view was suffering only an “indirect” and “speculative” injury.
Not so, said Chin and Menashi, in holding that DirecTV has antitrust standing to proceed on its federal antitrust claims. “Lost profits from a reduction in output represent a cognizable antitrust injury, and DirecTV has plausibly alleged that its lost profits flowed directly from the output-reducing effects of the alleged price-fixing conspiracy,” they ruled. “Additionally, we conclude that DirecTV is an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws. We reverse the judgment insofar as the district court held that DirecTV lacked antitrust standing to pursue its federal antitrust claims.”
That vacates the judgment “insofar as the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims,” remanding the matter for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.
Perhaps most important to the justification of a Supreme Court review is, in Nexstar and its partners’ view, the Second Circuit is in conflict with the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, which they say “have correctly applied Court’s controlling principles to non-purchasers’ claims challenging an alleged price-fixing scheme.”
Now, Nexstar, Mission and White Knight’s attorneys seek to persuade the Supreme Court that the Second Circuit “has countenanced this overly broad view of antitrust standing” and adjudicates “a disproportionate share of antitrust cases,” it presents the argument that permitting the Second Circuit decision to stand “will enable plaintiffs to bring speculative and indirect damages claims, based on conclusory pleading, and thus “coerce settlements given the expense of discovery and treble damages threat.”
Mission is the owner of 29 full-power TV stations across 26 markets. All of its television stations are operated by Nexstar via shared services agreements. Mission is led by Nancie Smith. White Knight is based in Lafayette, La., and dates to 1995. It is the owner of WVLA-TV in Baton Rouge and KFXK-TV and KFXL-LP in the Tyler-Longview-Lufkin, Tex., DMA. These stations remain blocked by DirecTV to their paying subscribers.
Lauren Willard Zehmer of Covington & Burling is the counsel of record for Nexstar; White Knight is represented by Venable LLP, while Mission’s legal counsel is Wiley Law.
