The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal judge can order a person to pay for a cheap violin if it is “a functional, functional, and useful instrument that has been made with the least amount of materials and labor.”
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a victory for violin makers and violists who had argued that the U and D have a constitutional right to regulate prices for instruments.
In an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, the court ruled that a person cannot be forced to pay a price when a cheaper instrument can be purchased at the same price online.
The ruling applies to the U., the District, and New York.
The court also found that a manufacturer can’t be required to sell a cheaper violin to a court in another state if it has an existing business in that state.
The decision was a win for the plaintiffs, who said the ruling would give them an incentive to get their instruments repaired.
It also gave manufacturers a boost in the federal government’s coffers, the ruling said.
“The court rightly determined that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the manufacture, sale, or importation of instruments that are not functionally or functionally useful,” Kagan wrote in the opinion.
The ruling comes as the U, D, and many other states have begun to enact new rules to address the problem of affordable violins.
The federal government has spent $1.1 billion on new regulations since the start of the year, including $100 million in September.
The U. S. Court, however, found that the law is too broad and did not address the issue of “harmful or unnecessary” prices.