The U.S. Supreme Court case California et al. v. ARC America Corp et al., 1988, revolved around the issue of whether federal antitrust law preempted state laws that allowed indirect purchasers to seek damages from price-fixing conspiracies. The respondents, a group of states and private parties, had filed lawsuits against several cement companies alleging they conspired to fix prices in violation of both federal and state laws. While the Sherman Act only allows direct purchasers to sue for treble damages under federal law, many states have statutes permitting indirect purchasers also to recover such damages. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Byron White, the court held that there was no evidence Congress intended for federal antitrust legislation (Sherman Act) to limit or supersede these types of state statutes when it enacted Illinois Brick's direct purchaser rule - thus allowing indirect buyers/purchasers who were affected by anti-competitive practices like price fixing schemes could indeed bring claims under their respective State’s Antitrust Laws even if they couldn't do so under Federal Law.

In the dissenting opinion for California et al. v. ARC America Corp., Justice Scalia argued that federal law should preempt state laws in antitrust matters, as it does in other areas of commerce. He believed that allowing states to impose their own antitrust regulations could lead to a patchwork of conflicting rules and undermine national economic policy. Furthermore, he contended that Congress intended for the Clayton Act's indirect purchaser rule to be exclusive when they passed Illinois Brick Co v Illinois, which prohibited indirect purchasers from seeking damages under federal law but did not explicitly address whether they could do so under state law. Thus, according to Scalia’s interpretation, this silence meant an implicit preemption of state laws permitting such suits.