The case of Antony Brown, et al. v. Pro Football, Inc., DBA Washington Redskins, et al., 1995 revolved around the issue of whether or not the National Football League (NFL) and its teams were exempt from antitrust laws during collective bargaining negotiations with players. The NFL had set a fixed salary for practice squad players which was challenged by several players who claimed this constituted price-fixing in violation of antitrust laws. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NFL stating that labor law exemptions did apply to such practices when they occurred within a collective bargaining context between unions and employers. This decision effectively allowed professional sports leagues to establish certain wage agreements without violating antitrust legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for Antony Brown, et al. v. Pro Football, Inc., DBA Washington Redskins, et al., Justice Stevens argued that the NFL's collective bargaining agreement should not exempt it from antitrust laws. He contended that labor law and antitrust law serve different purposes and are not mutually exclusive; therefore, one cannot be used to shield violations of another. The majority's decision allows a group of employers to fix wages at an artificially low level without fear of legal repercussions if they can claim their actions were part of a collective bargaining process - even after negotiations have reached an impasse. This interpretation undermines both the purpose and effectiveness of antitrust legislation by allowing businesses to exploit loopholes in labor laws for anti-competitive ends.