The U.S. Supreme Court case Community Communications Co., Inc. v. City of Boulder, Colorado (1981) revolved around a dispute between the city and a cable television company over an ordinance that restricted competition in the local market for cable services. The city had granted exclusive rights to another company, thereby preventing Community Communications from operating within its jurisdiction without permission. The court ruled 6-3 against Boulder, stating that it was not immune from federal antitrust laws under the state-action doctrine because it did not act pursuant to a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy when it enacted its ordinance restricting competition for cable services within its limits.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Community Communications Co., Inc. v. City of Boulder, Colorado argued that the majority's decision to deny Boulder's claim to immunity from antitrust laws was incorrect and inconsistent with precedent. The dissenters believed that the city’s actions were a legitimate exercise of its state-granted authority and should be protected under Parker v. Brown, which established state-action immunity from federal antitrust laws for certain governmental entities acting within their jurisdictional powers. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Cantor v Detroit Edison Co., arguing it did not limit Parker immunity as narrowly as suggested by the majority but rather reaffirmed it while clarifying its boundaries against private conduct masquerading as government action.