In Albrecht v. Herald Co., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a newspaper carrier, George Albrecht, who was terminated by his employer, The Globe-Democrat Publishing Company for refusing to comply with their price-fixing policy. The company had set a maximum resale price on newspapers that its carriers could charge customers and when Albrecht refused to abide by this rule, he was replaced. He then sued the company under the Sherman Antitrust Act claiming it engaged in illegal price fixing which violated federal antitrust laws. In an 8-1 decision, the court held that such vertical price-fixing arrangements were indeed per se violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they eliminated competition among sellers at different levels of trade and interfered with market forces determining prices.

In the dissenting opinion for Albrecht v. Herald Co., Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Clark and Stewart, argued that the majority's decision to classify price fixing as a per se violation of antitrust laws was overly simplistic and failed to consider important economic factors. They contended that not all forms of price fixing are inherently harmful or anti-competitive; in some cases, they may even be beneficial. The justices believed that each case should be evaluated individually based on its specific circumstances rather than applying a blanket rule. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's interpretation of precedent as too broad and asserted it could potentially stifle legitimate business practices under antitrust law scrutiny unnecessarily.