In the case of Citizen Publishing Co. et al. v. United States, 1968, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision that an agreement between two newspaper companies in Tucson, Arizona violated antitrust laws. The two newspapers had agreed to merge their production and distribution operations while maintaining separate editorial staffs - a practice known as a joint operating agreement (JOA). They argued that this was necessary for both papers to survive financially due to competition from television news sources. However, the Department of Justice sued them on grounds of violating Sherman Antitrust Act which prohibits certain business activities that federal government regulators deem to be anti-competitive. The publishers claimed exemption under the failing company doctrine which allows mergers if one company is about to go out of business and there are no other potential buyers available but it was rejected by courts stating they failed to prove imminent failure without JOA or absence of any other prospective purchaser. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings with its ruling emphasizing Congress' intent behind antitrust legislation: promoting competition and preventing monopolies even when such arrangements might seem economically sensible or beneficial for struggling businesses.

In the dissenting opinion for Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of antitrust laws and could potentially harm local newspapers' ability to survive in an increasingly competitive market environment. He contended that these laws were not designed to prevent businesses from making necessary adaptations or mergers to ensure their survival but rather aimed at preventing monopolies from forming and dominating markets unfairly. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential impact on freedom of press if small newspapers are unable to compete effectively due to stringent interpretations of antitrust legislation.