from regulating baseball, "the ultimate question is whether the state action conflicts with national policy", Fairchild concluded, noting that either preventing the Braves' move or requiring MLB to locate an expansion team in Wisconsin would have nationwide implications, particularly if other states similarly brought their laws to bear. The majority, Fairchild said, either found it "unrealistic to interpret these decisions of the supreme court of the United States plus the silence of Congress as creating a mere vacuum in national policy, leaving the states free to regulate the membership of the baseball leagues" or followed Toolson in deferring to the reliance interests the federal antitrust exemption had established and Congress's sole power to change that. It did, however, note in its conclusion that "[t]he record strongly suggests that the defendants gave little heed to the interests of the Milwaukee community, and to the injury which the move would cause", expressing a wish for Congress to deal with the issue. Justice Nathan Heffernan, writing for the three dissenters, castigated the majority for ignoring well-established Supreme Court precedent that Congressional inaction is never to be taken as proscribing state action without an express provision to that effect. "Can we conclude that congressional silence amounts to a manifestation that it is the national policy and the congressional will that baseball be free of all regulation? We think not", he wrote. "The most that possibly can be concluded from the failure of Congress to enact some regulation of baseball is that it reveals a congressional complacency with its own policy of nonaction and inertia." The majority had similarly disregarded a recent reiteration of an older admonition from the Supreme Court not to infer federal intent to pre-empt the states merely from congressional inaction, Heffernan added. To the dissenters, the other majority theory, that the reliance interests nationally precluded any exercise of state authority, was at odds with another Supreme Court precedent, California v. Thompson. Recalling "the cavalier disregard of either law or reasonableness in the exercise of the baseball monopoly" that the majority had itself taken note of, "[w]e cannot conclude that the state is less able to resist this treatment of its legitimate interests by organized baseball than it is to prevent the entrance into its boundaries of contagious disease, although such disease is carried in interstate commerce", Heffernan wrote. "It is difficult to see what national interest is preserved by immunizing this