In the case of Columbia Artists Management Inc. et al. v. United States et al., 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government and against Columbia Artists Management (CAMI) and other concert promoters who were accused by the Department of Justice for violating antitrust laws through restrictive booking practices that limited competition among performers and venues. The court upheld a lower court's decision that CAMI had indeed violated these laws by controlling where artists could perform, thereby limiting opportunities for competitors to book those same artists at different venues or times. This ruling was significant as it affirmed federal antitrust law’s application to arts management companies, reinforcing principles designed to promote competition within industries.

In the dissenting opinion for Columbia Artists Management Inc. et al. v. United States et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found certain practices of concert artist managers in violation of antitrust laws, was incorrect due to its failure to consider the unique nature and characteristics of this particular industry. He contended that these practices were not inherently anti-competitive but rather necessary for survival in an industry characterized by high risk and uncertainty. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s application of traditional antitrust principles without considering whether they are appropriate or applicable given the peculiarities and complexities inherent in this specific business sector.