on Piazza and Butterworth as attacks on the validity of the antitrust exemption as a bar to their claims. She conceded that the Florida Supreme Court's complaint that Finley and the other precedents supporting a broad exemption were deficient in their reasoning, but noted that both they and Padova had omitted from their analysis the Flood Court's concluding statement quoting from Toolson: "Congress had no intention of including the business of baseball within the scope of the federal antitrust laws." Major League Baseball v. Butterworth But after Butterworth raised Piazza again in a 2001 suit over CIDs he issued again in response to MLB's plan to eliminate two teams the following season, federal judge Robert Lewis Hinkle of Florida's Northern District was unimpressed. Engaging in the same close reading of the baseball trilogy, he held that "[t]he assertion that [Federal Baseball] was solely a reserve clause case is simply not true", noting that the case discussed a wide range of allegedly unlawful trade practices. He criticized Piazza in a footnote: "Whatever the lower court might have thought, the Supreme Court thought Federal Baseball dealt with other issues, over and above the reserve clause. It is an odd approach to interpreting Supreme Court cases to disregard that Court's own description of a case in favor of a lower court's description." The brief per curiam opinion in Toolson had not mentioned the reserve clause. The later cases in the 1950s—Shuster, International Boxing and Radovich—also lent support to a broad scope for baseball's antitrust exemption. Hinkle observed that the first mentioned only "the business of baseball", and the latter two, as they had also concerned sports, would likely have mentioned the reserve clause in declining to extend baseball's exemption to those sports (The judge found International Boxing particularly on point as the reserve clause has no equivalent in that sport, and thus the Court would have said that if it saw baseball's exemption as so confined). In Flood, "[n]ot once did the Court intimate in any way that it was only the reserve clause that was exempt", Hinkle wrote. "To the contrary, the Court's articulation of the exemption was always phrased as the business of baseball, never as simply the reserve clause." He followed this with a detailed review of the Flood Court's view of all the predecessor cases. "Not once did the Court intimate in any way that it was only the